Answer: Today, as a result of extensive new research and profound changes in American race relations, historians view Reconstruction far more favorably, as a time of genuine progress for former slaves and the South
South Carolina felt it had the right to nullify a federal law because it wad unfair. Jackson had supported state's rights, but in this case he responded with threats of military actions if South Carolina tried to secede because Jackson wanted to keep the Union together. i found i on this https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20151104110740AAszs9X
The correct answer is <span>Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña
In this case, the supreme court decided that even in such cases it could be unconstitutional and that each individual case there should be a process of strict scrutiny of the events, which is the most strict way of observing something and the most thorough. The case was related to to both the analysis of the 14th and the 5th amendment.</span>
<span>Miller was particularly offended by those who "named names" before HUAC, and he himself refused to do so. While the Crucible indeed villainized the prosecutors and Court – those in the parallel positions of Joe McCarthy and HUAC – the play martyrs Corey and Proctor for refusing to do so. At the expense of their own lives, Corey and Proctor refused to condemn others, and in Miller's eyes, this is the only truly moral decision.</span>
