1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
sergey [27]
3 years ago
6

In general, did feudalism and manor relations promote movement from one social class to another?

History
1 answer:
AnnZ [28]3 years ago
3 0
No because you have to have done something wrong to cause being moved.
You might be interested in
In what way was the Sherman Antitrust Act successful?
Maksim231197 [3]

Answer:

It allowed the government to break up the trust arrangement that the Standard Oil company had.

Explanation:

Approved July 2, 1890, The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was the first Federal act that outlawed monopolistic business practices.

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was the first measure passed by the U.S. Congress to prohibit trusts. It was named for Senator John Sherman of Ohio, who was a chairman of the Senate finance committee and the Secretary of the Treasury under President Hayes. Several states had passed similar laws, but they were limited to intrastate businesses. The Sherman Antitrust Act was based on the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act passed the Senate by a vote of 51–1 on April 8, 1890, and the House by a unanimous vote of 242–0 on June 20, 1890. President Benjamin Harrison signed the bill into law on July 2, 1890.

A trust was an arrangement by which stockholders in several companies transferred their shares to a single set of trustees. In exchange, the stockholders received a certificate entitling them to a specified share of the consolidated earnings of the jointly managed companies. The trusts came to dominate a number of major industries, destroying competition. For example, on January 2, 1882, the Standard Oil Trust was formed. Attorney Samuel Dodd of Standard Oil first had the idea of a trust. A board of trustees was set up, and all the Standard properties were placed in its hands. Every stockholder received 20 trust certificates for each share of Standard Oil stock. All the profits of the component companies were sent to the nine trustees, who determined the dividends. The nine trustees elected the directors and officers of all the component companies. This allowed the Standard Oil to function as a monopoly since the nine trustees ran all the component companies.

The Sherman Act authorized the Federal Government to institute proceedings against trusts in order to dissolve them. Any combination “in the form of trust or otherwise that was in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations” was declared illegal. Persons forming such combinations were subject to fines of $5,000 and a year in jail. Individuals and companies suffering losses because of trusts were permitted to sue in Federal court for triple damages. The Sherman Act was designed to restore competition but was loosely worded and failed to define such critical terms as “trust,” “combination,” “conspiracy,” and “monopoly.” Five years later, the Supreme Court dismantled the Sherman Act in United States v. E. C. Knight Company (1895). The Court ruled that the American Sugar Refining Company, one of the other defendants in the case, had not violated the law even though the company controlled about 98 percent of all sugar refining in the United States. The Court opinion reasoned that the company’s control of manufacture did not constitute a control of trade.

The Court’s ruling in E. C. Knight seemed to end any government regulation of trusts. In spite of this, during President Theodore Roosevelt’s “trust busting” campaigns at the turn of the century, the Sherman Act was used with considerable success. In 1904 the Court upheld the government’s suit to dissolve the Northern Securities Company in State of Minnesota v. Northern Securities Company. By 1911, President Taft had used the act against the Standard Oil Company and the American Tobacco Company. In the late 1990s, in another effort to ensure a competitive free market system, the Federal Government used the Sherman Act, then over 100 years old, against the giant Microsoft computer software company.

Resource Used:

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=51

I hope this helps you in any shape or form.

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did enslaved Africans adapt to life in the Americas?
Tanzania [10]

Answer:

They blended their languages, cultures, and religions to create something new.

Explanation:

4 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What Would You Do First If You Were the New President?
miskamm [114]

Answer:

I would address the breaching of the Capitol building, more specifically h safely and orderly take care of all security issues while resolving any setbacks  efficiently.

Explanation:

Reflecting back throughout the 2020 year safety has not been the most important to certain politacally authoritative figures and the events that have unfolded blatantly to be the case time and time again. From police brutality to stimulus packages insecurity has become zenith in the consantly  riled society we reside among today. As widespread apprehensiveness plagues the minds of hardworking Americans, I would ensure you that making the safety and peace of the people I preside over would be my absolute main priority.

3 0
3 years ago
Which statement is true?
Sindrei [870]
The correct answer is A. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

- - -
Nixon resigned to try and protect some the decent reputation he had left.
5 0
3 years ago
10 POINTS
netineya [11]

Answer:

Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare that acts of the other branches of government are unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable. For example if Congress were to pass a law banning newspapers from printing information about certain political matters, courts would have the authority to rule that this law violates the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. State courts also have the power to strike down their own state’s laws based on the state or federal constitutions.

Today, we take judicial review for granted. In fact, it is one of the main characteristics of government in the United States. On an almost daily basis, court decisions come down from around the country striking down state and federal rules as being unconstitutional. Some of the topics of these laws in recent times include same sex marriage bans, voter identification laws, gun restrictions, government surveillance programs and restrictions on abortion.

Other countries have also gotten in on the concept of judicial review. A Romanian court recently ruled that a law granting immunity to lawmakers and banning certain types of speech against public officials was unconstitutional. Greek courts have ruled that certain wage cuts for public employees are unconstitutional. The legal system of the European Union specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Union the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is also afforded to the courts of Canada, Japan, India and other countries. Clearly, the world trend is in favor of giving courts the power to review the acts of the other branches of government.

However, it was not always so. In fact, the idea that the courts have the power to strike down laws duly passed by the legislature is not much older than is the United States. In the civil law system, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. In the (British) common law system, on which American law is based, judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. However, as Britain has no Constitution, the principle that a court could strike down a law as being unconstitutional was not relevant in Britain. Moreover, even to this day, Britain has an attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy. Therefore, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike down legislation.

Explanation:

nationalparalegal.edu /JudicialReview.aspx

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Among instances of corporate malfeasance in the early twenty-first century, the _______ scandal was the most shocking and econom
    10·1 answer
  • In a direct democracy, decisions are made collectively by citizens using __________.
    10·1 answer
  • The defeat of this island allowed for the successful bombing of the mainland of japan. ___________.
    9·1 answer
  • Jews and Romans got along with each other during the Roman occupation true or false
    13·1 answer
  • Why would loyalty oaths correctly complete the diagram?
    13·1 answer
  • What two European powers began to explore the New World and would become rivals with Spain for the exploration, colonization, an
    7·2 answers
  • According to the author, what difficulties did African captives face?
    6·1 answer
  • About how many people died building the Great Wall of China?
    14·2 answers
  • This is the political idea the individual states have political powers related to the federal government. It was established in
    6·1 answer
  • In what Cuban commodity was the
    9·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!