Answer:
Since the United States was established there was always a great importance to maintain a relationship between both the states and the nation, both politically and economically. In the late 1700's to the early 1800's, George Washington's treasurer, Alexander Hamilton, had opted for a "Bank of the United States", which was fully within Congress's authority. He was wanting the bank to circulate and print paper money and expand economic development. This was eventually signed into legislation and a national government was created. The Bank taxed both the states and the nation as a whole. The Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, did not support the national bank nor did his supporters, the Jefferson Democratic-Republicans. The bank's charter expired in 1811, and the supporters along with Jefferson wanted to block its renewal. This lead to various questions and conflicts such as "Could Congress charter a national bank?" or "Could the federal government tax the states?" The Barron vs Baltimore case ("James McCulloch, an agent for the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank, refused to pay a tax that Maryland had imposed on all out-of-state chartered banks") declared that the Bill of Rights could NOT restrict the powers of the state governments. After this, there was a rise of dual federalism. Dual federalism was the states and national government exercising exclusive authority in distinctly delineated spheres of jurisdiction. Then there was a rise of cooperative federalism, which was when both levels of government coordinated their actions to solve national problems, such as the Great Depression. Then came an era of new federalism which is what the nation uses today. By decentralizing policies, authority can blend between the national, state and local governments.
Explanation:
Cautiously continue driving
Answer:
The exclusionary rule
Explanation:
the decision in Mappy v. Ohio declared that evidence that is obtained through an illegal search or seizure can not be used as evidence and must be excluded. This means that if an officer finds evidence of a crime on you but does not announce Miranda rights before searching you, then the evidence found from your crime can not be used against you in a court.
A i think hope this helps you out
