Answer:
Not writing your entire page but I'll give basics, The stamp act of 1765 was an act in which any purchased goods, Be it food or a deck of cards, Where stamped with a tax. This was unfair for obvious reason i'm sure you can figure out.
The tea act of 1773 was an act in which tea could be directly shipped to the colonies with out first stopping at England, I believe this meant that the colonists had to pay the taxes on the tea instead of the British this was unfair for again obvious reasons.
Explanation:
Good luck.
Meaning of the 8 th juror presents ???
Answer:
Free state im pretty sure is the side they were on, against slavery.
After graduating with honours from St. Paul (now William Mitchell) College of Law in 1931, Burger joined a prominent St. Paul law firm and gradually became active in Republican Party politics. In 1953 he was appointed an assistant U.S. attorney general, and in 1955 he was nominated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Burger’s generally conservative approach during his 13-year service (1956–69) on the nation’s second highest court commended him to President Richard M. Nixon, who in 1969 named Burger to succeed Earl Warren as chief justice of the Supreme Court. He was quickly confirmed and in June 1969 was sworn in as the nation’s chief justice.
Contrary to some popular expectations, Burger and his three fellow Nixon-appointed justices did not try to reverse the tide of activist decision making on civil-rights issues and criminal law that was the Warren court’s chief legacy. The court upheld the 1966 Miranda decision, which required that a criminal suspect under arrest be informed of his rights, and the court also upheld busing as a permissible means of racially desegregating public schools and the use of racial quotas in the distribution of federal grants and contracts to minorities. Under Burger’s leadership the court did dilute several minor Warren-era decisions protecting the rights of criminal defendants, but the core of the Warren court’s legal precedents in this and other fields survived almost untouched.
hope this helps
Answer:
In a confederate system of government, the majority of political power is based on the local government, while the central government has very little power. Local government has the power to act as they wish, which can cause conflicts between states and the central government.
The Confederation represents an alliance between states, reinforced by a common ruling body that has no higher central authority that would give the Confederacy a mark of sovereignty. The Confederation does not have any of the three state governments (legislative, executive, judicial).
Explanation:
The implementation of decisions is made unanimously (which carries a risk of inefficiency) and depends on the will of the member states because they implement decisions.
The Confederation, as a legal relationship between states, has neither a central authority, nor its territory, nor its population. The states sign an international treaty, not a constitution, so member states have both a veto right and a secession right. Therefore, the confederation cannot be even considered as a state, but rather an enhanced form of the alliance between states.