Answer:
"Dred Scott Decision," which was very controversial.
Explanation:
DRED SCOTT DECISION where the Supreme Court ruling stated slaves did not have a right to sue since they were not citizens, but merely property.
These were their arguments.
Dred Scott:
When a person enters a free State or territory, the free status overrides the previous condition of servitude. Since slavery was forbidden in the free States and territories by
federal and State laws, Dred Scott became free when he entered Illinois and Wisconsin.
Sandford:
To deprive a person of property (in this case, Dred Scott) without due process or just compensation violated the 5th Amendment, which states that “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Dred Scott was still a slave and no master's property rights could be limited or taken away by a State or federal law.
September 1, 1939 – September 2, 1945
A lobbyist is a teacher. Georgia's lawmakers may have occupations as ranchers, lawyers, specialists, bookkeepers, instructors or retirees. It is the GFIA campaigning group that teaches lawmakers on what a bill will mean for the food business. It is highly unlikely that low maintenance administrators can be specialists on each field. That is the reason a lobbyist assumes a significant part in the administrative cycle.
In the wake of meeting with our directorate, your GFIA lobbyists will contact officials, requesting that they support a bill that will help the food business. Passing a bill is an exceptionally troublesome assignment because of the numerous means prior to arriving at the lead representative. Different occasions, we play safeguard by perusing each bill as it is presented, composing a rundown of the bill and requesting that our individuals evaluate the potential effect the enactment will have on their business.
Hoped I help!
d is the answer please mark me brainlest
