Answer:
To disagree with everything the president wants to make happen.
Explanation:
McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.
The case arose in 2008, when Otis McDonald, a retired African American custodian, and others filed suit in U.S. District Court to challenge provisions of a 1982 Chicago law that, among other things, generally banned the new registration of handguns and made registration a prerequisite of possession of a firearm. The next day the National Rifle Association and others filed separate lawsuits challenging the Chicago law and an Oak Park, Ill., law that generally prohibited the possession or carrying of handguns and the carrying of other firearms except rifles or shotguns in one’s home or place of business. Each suit alleged that the law violated the right of individuals to possess and carry weapons, which the Supreme Court had found to be protected by the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). (Anticipating this finding, the plaintiffs in McDonald v. City of Chicago filed suit on the same morning that the decision in Heller was announced.) The crucial question, however, was whether the Second Amendment is applicable to the states and their political subdivisions. Citing “selective incorporation,” the Supreme Court’s gradual application to the states of most of the protections of the Bill of Rights through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which prohibits the states from denying life, liberty, or property without due process of law), the plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment is applicable through that clause as well as through the amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause (which forbids the states from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States)
<u><em>Have a good day, afternoon or night!</em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<em> ~Dreamer1331~</em>
In the 1920s, more than 750,000 African Americans left the South--a greater movement of people than had occurred in the Irish potato famine of the 1840s. The large-scale relocation to the Northeast and West brought many other changes with it, as many largely rural people moved into cities for the first time.
HOPE THIS HELPED!!!
Answer:
3 inches
Explanation:
According to some research and discoveries, it has been proven that there are differences in tallness of the colonists and and those people that they left in Europe. According to these researches, it has been discovered [although still with controversies] that the reason behind the tallness or height is none other than the way that they fed in their new colony.
It is been said that the colonists were three[3] inches taller than those that that they left in Europe.
I believe your answers are A, D, and E. I hope I could help! :))
