Yes, the statement is true.
Conflict erupted within and between the colonial territories of North America and American Indians as a result of different European nations competing for the same resources.
- As the French, Dutch, British, and Spanish colonies allied with, traded with, and armed American Indian groups, conflicts in Europe migrated to North America, resulting in ongoing political instability.
- Teachers have the liberty to utilize examples such as the following: Chickasaw and Beaver Wars
- As European nations fought it out for dominance in North America, their colonies concentrated on securing fresh labor as well as on manufacturing and purchasing goods that were highly prized in Europe.
- Conflicts between the social and economic values of Europeans and American Indians led to changes in both societies.
To learn more about European Colonization visit the link:
brainly.com/question/4805482?referrer=searchResults
#SPJ4
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.
Answer:
The answer is pretty straight forward.
There are several types of accounts such as,
Savings accounts: these accounts are used to save money and have a low interest rate. can deposit and withdraw money any time.
Fixed Deposits: these deposits provide a higher interest rate yet the deposit has to remain a fixed period of time and cannot withdraw or deposit as you wish.
Current accounts: The type of accounts allows the users to do transactions in cheques and allows bank overdrafts as well. However, they don't provide an interest income.
Apart from this main 3 types, there are many other variations of these accounts that have similarities to these accounts. following is a list of them,
- Checking Accounts
- Dividend/Interest Checking Accounts
- A Money Market Account
Explanation:
Answer: Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government, which would diminish the rights of the states and of individuals. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to alleviate their fears.
Further detail:
The Anti-Federalists had opposed ratification of the US Constitution. The Articles of Confederation, in place prior to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, had granted stronger authority to the states. Patrick Henry and other Anti-Federalists were concerned about too much power winding up in the hands of the federal government and its executive branch, thus allowing a small number of national elites to control the affairs of the USA. They feared this also would diminish the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.
The Bill of Rights, laid out in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, provided some reassurance to Anti-Federalists after the fight over ratification, because these amendments to the Constitution served to guarantee that individuals' rights would be protected under federal law.
