Answer:
Marbury: Was appointed as a federal judge - Supported the Judiciary Act of 1789 - Argued for original jurisdiction.
-Madison: Refused to honor an appointment.Explanation:
Marbury v. Madison was a judicial case resolved by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1803. It arose as a result of a political dispute following the presidential elections of 1800, in which Thomas Jefferson, who was a Democratic Republican, defeated then-President John Adams, who was a federalist. In the last days of the outgoing government of Adams, the Congress, dominated by the federalists, established a series of judicial positions, among them 42 justices the of peace for the District of Columbia. The Senate confirmed the appointments, the president signed them and the Secretary of State was in charge of sealing and delivering the appointment documents. In the last-minute hustle and bustle, the outgoing secretary of state did not deliver the minutes of appointment to four justices of the peace, including William Marbury.
The new secretary of state under President Jefferson, James Madison, refused to deliver the minutes of appointment as the new government was irritated by the maneuver of the federalists of trying to secure control of the judiciary with the appointment of members of their party just before ceasing in government. However, Marbury appealed to the Supreme Court to order Madison to deliver his record.
If the Court ruled in favor of Marbury, Madison could still refuse to deliver the record and the Supreme Court would have no way to enforce the order. If the Court ruled against Marbury, it risked submitting the judiciary to Jefferson's supporters by allowing them to deny Marbury the position he could legally claim. Chief Justice John Marshall resolved this dilemma by deciding that the Supreme Court was not empowered to settle this case. Marshall ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, which granted the Court these powers, was unconstitutional because it extended the original jurisdiction of the Court to the jurisdiction defined by the Constitution itself. Having decided not to intervene in this particular case, the Supreme Court secured its position as final arbiter of the law.
B. and E. marked the downfall of the Inca empire, for obvious reasons. Disease and civil war would obviously kill the empire, and taking an important leader would also mark great chaos within the empire. A. and C. are not to be ignored however, considering that maintaining peaceful relationships with the Spaniards only brought death and chaos to the Aztecs, all from the Spaniards.
The correct answer is Abraham Lincoln
This was at the beginning of the civil war. The south relied on foreigners to get their necessary goods like manufactured products or weaponry or similar things and they also relied on the ports to get their politicians to Europe and try to get recognized as an independent country. Lincoln blocked their ports with Northern ships in order to prevent them from doing this.
There was a set of mutual social obligations and the teachings of the church
Without the feudal system the people would not have land where to live and could not get any food or shelter or anything since the land belonged to the nobles as decreed by the king. The church also supported this system since it enabled the idea that kings are there by divine right and that you should support them and the church.
Locke believed that in order to protect natural rights, government power had to be limited.
