Answer:
Unfortunately you are dealing with the credibility of a non credible source. The United States government has proven itself to be untrustworthy and untruthful many times, and continues to do so. Once the United States government (and many others) become more truthful, things like the moon landing will become much easier too believe.Explanation:
Venetian explorer, Marco Polo, told his cellmate during his imprisonment after the Venetian-Genoese War about his travels to the Far East. These accounts became a book , later entitled "The Travels of Marco Polo" which was influential in sparking people's curiosity of the East.
The first impact was that Marco Polo was able to bring elements of Western culture to the East and Eastern culture back to the West. Because of his exploration Indonesia, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, and India, China began to experience Western culture.
Next, Marco Polo's interactions with Mongolian emperor Kublai Khan led to commercial exchange with Western merchants who were now arriving in China. This increased Chinese's growth as a civilization.
The Silk Road, an easier route to travel around the Gobi Desert, traced by the Polos had a huge effect in the future of European and Chinese interaction. It would prove to be a more effective route than to sail the oceans to China.
The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
The answer is B.
B. Duty of Confidentiality
<em>Hope this helps!!</em>
<em>:))</em>
The correct answer among all the other choices is D. re-try the case. All of the other choices are actions performed by The Court of Appeals except this. Thank you for posting your question. I hope this answer helped you. Let me know if you need more help.
