1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Ainat [17]
3 years ago
6

Is impeachment a political act?

History
2 answers:
Flura [38]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

Explanation:

American?

tatuchka [14]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

Yes.

Explanation:

:)

You might be interested in
Do you think President Johnson’s actions deserved to have him removed from office? Why or why not?
Alex17521 [72]

Answer:

president johnson deserved to be removed from office because he violated current legislation

Explanation:

Johnson was impeached on February 24, 1868 by the United States House of Representatives. The reason for the impeachment was Johnson's violation of the felony and misdemeanor law. Under this law the president could only remove individuals from office in the executive cabinet if the senate agreed to the dismissal. Johnson dismissed Edwin M. Stanton without consulting the Senate and therefore violated a law and deserved to be ousted as president.

Johnson was impeached on February 24, 1868 by the United States House of Representatives. The reason for the impeachment was Johnson's violation of the felony and misdemeanor law. Under this law the president could only remove individuals from office in the executive cabinet if the senate agreed to the dismissal. Johnson dismissed Edwin M. Stanton without consulting the Senate and therefore violated a law and deserved to be ousted as president.

Johnson was impeached on February 24, 1868 by the United States House of Representatives. The reason for the impeachment was Johnson's violation of the felony and misdemeanor law. Under this law the president could only remove individuals from office in the executive cabinet if the senate agreed to the dismissal. Johnson dismissed Edwin M. Stanton without consulting the Senate and therefore violated a law and deserved to be ousted as president.

Johnson was impeached on February 24, 1868 by the United States House of Representatives. The reason for the impeachment was Johnson's violation of the felony and misdemeanor law. Under this law the president could only remove individuals from office in the executive cabinet if the senate agreed to the dismissal. Johnson dismissed Edwin M. Stanton without consulting the Senate and therefore violated a law and deserved to be ousted as president.

8 0
3 years ago
Who did the East Africans trade with? How was this trade conducted?
topjm [15]
East Africa being Egypt, I'm pretty sure and it depends on what time period but the silk Road went right through east Africa so trade was probably really quick thanks to the silk road and the connection between the middle east and Africa...
3 0
3 years ago
What were andrew johnson policies concerning the rights of African Americans?
Lelu [443]

for the most part, historians view Andrew Johnson as the worst possible person to have served as President at the end of the American Civil War. Because of his gross incompetence in federal office and his incredible miscalculation of the extent of public support for his policies, Johnson is judged as a great failure in making a satisfying and just peace. He is viewed to have been a rigid, dictatorial racist who was unable to compromise or to accept a political reality at odds with his own ideas. Instead of forging a compromise between Radical Republicans and moderates, his actions united the opposition against him. His bullheaded opposition to the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment eliminated all hope of using presidential authority to affect further compromises favorable to his position. In the end, Johnson did more to extend the period of national strife than he did to heal the wounds of war.

Most importantly, Johnson's strong commitment to obstructing political and civil rights for blacks is principally responsible for the failure of Reconstruction to solve the race problem in the South and perhaps in America as well. Johnson's decision to support the return of the prewar social and economic system—except for slavery—cut short any hope of a redistribution of land to the freed people or a more far-reaching reform program in the South.

Historians naturally wonder what might have happened had Lincoln, a genius at political compromise and perhaps the most effective leader to ever serve as President, lived. Would African Americans have obtained more effective guarantees of their civil rights? Would Lincoln have better completed what one historian calls the "unfinished revolution" in racial justice and equality begun by the Civil War? Almost all historians believe that the outcome would have been far different under Lincoln's leadership.

Among historians, supporters of Johnson are few in recent years. However, from the 1870s to around the time of World War II, Johnson enjoyed high regard as a strong-willed President who took the courageous high ground in challenging Congress's unconstitutional usurpation of presidential authority. In this view, much out of vogue today, Johnson is seen to have been motivated by a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and by a firm belief in the separation of powers. This perspective reflected a generation of historians who were critical of Republican policy and skeptical of the viability of racial equality as a national policy. Even here, however, apologists for Johnson acknowledge his inability to effectively deal with congressional challenges due to his personal limitations as a leader.

7 0
3 years ago
Which 2 of the following were British documents that influenced the creation of the US constitution
lianna [129]

magna carta and the mayflower impact

7 0
4 years ago
What is the purpose of the document of undelivered speech​
steposvetlana [31]

Answer: am not sure this is the answer but try it

Explanation:I seek no confrontation. I only pray and will strive for a genuine national reconciliation founded on justice.

I am prepared for the worst, and have decided against the advice of my mother, my spiritual adviser, many of my tested friends and a few of my most valued political mentors.

A death sentence awaits me. Two more subversion charges, both calling for death penalties, have been filed since I left three years ago and are now pending with the courts.

I could have opted to seek political asylum in America, but I feel it is my duty, as it is the duty of every Filipino, to suffer with his people especially in time of crisis.

I never sought nor have I been given assurances or promise of leniency by the regime. I return voluntarily armed only with a clear conscience and fortified in the faith that in the end justice will emerge triumphant.

According to Gandhi, the willing sacrifice of the innocent is the most powerful answer to insolent tyranny that has yet been conceived by God and man.

Three years ago when I left for an emergency heart bypass operation, I hoped and prayed that the rights and freedoms of our people would soon be restored, that living conditions would improve and that blood-letting would stop.

Rather than move forward, we have moved backward. The killings have increased, the economy has taken a turn for the worse and the human rights situation has deteriorated.

During the martial law period, the Supreme Court heard petitions for Habeas Corpus. It is most ironic, after martial law has allegedly been lifted, that the Supreme Court last April ruled it can no longer entertain petitions for Habeas Corpus for persons detained under a Presidential Commitment Order, which covers all so-called national security cases and which under present circumstances can cover almost anything.

The country is far advanced in her times of trouble. Economic, social and political problems bedevil the Filipino. These problems may be surmounted if we are united. But we can be united only if all the rights and freedoms enjoyed before September 21, 1972 are fully restored.

The Filipino asks for nothing more, but will surely accept nothing less, than all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the 1935 Constitution—the most sacred legacies from the Founding Fathers.

Yes, the Filipino is patient, but there is a limit to his patience. Must we wait until that patience snaps?

The nation-wide rebellion is escalating and threatens to explode into a bloody revolution. There is a growing cadre of young Filipinos who have finally come to realize that freedom is never granted, it is taken. Must we relive the agonies and the blood-letting of the past that brought forth our Republic or can we sit down as brothers and sisters and discuss our differences with reason and goodwill?

I have often wondered how many disputes could have been settled easily had the disputants only dared to define their terms.

So as to leave no room for misunderstanding, I shall define my terms:

1. Six years ago, I was sentenced to die before a firing squad by a Military Tribunal whose jurisdiction I steadfastly refused to recognize. It is now time for the regime to decide. Order my IMMEDIATE EXECUTION OR SET ME FREE.

I was sentenced to die for allegedly being the leading communist leader. I am not a communist, never was and never will be.

2. National reconciliation and unity can be achieved but only with justice, including justice for our Muslim and Ifugao brothers. There can be no deal with a Dictator. No compromise with Dictatorship.

3. In a revolution there can really be no victors, only victims. We do not have to destroy in order to build.

4. Subversion stems from economic, social and political causes and will not be solved by purely military solutions; it can be curbed not with ever increasing repression but with a more equitable distribution of wealth, more democracy and more freedom, and

5. For the economy to get going once again, the workingman must be given his just and rightful share of his labor, and to the owners and managers must be restored the hope where there is so much uncertainty if not despair.

On one of the long corridors of Harvard University are carved in granite the words of Archibald Macleish:

“How shall freedom be defended? By arms when it is attacked by arms; by truth when it is attacked by lies; by democratic faith when it is attacked by authoritarian dogma. Always, and in the final act, by determination and faith.”

I return from exile and to an uncertain future with only determination and faith to offer—faith in our people and faith in God.

Basahin sa Filipino

4 0
4 years ago
Other questions:
  • What sector(s) of the economy provide(s) the most savings?
    8·1 answer
  • Which singer provided the backup vocals to carly simon's "you're so vain?" paul mccartney alice cooper james taylor mick jagger?
    6·1 answer
  • Describe the movement of the American people from the early years of the nation to the president
    6·1 answer
  • What nations formed the triple alliance and the triple entente?
    11·1 answer
  • Franklin Roosevelt won the election because he had some success in New York. What did he do?
    6·2 answers
  • During the Depression, what did Eleanor
    10·2 answers
  • 3. When did World War II officially<br> come to an end?
    9·1 answer
  • Which legal change after the american revolution most likely resulted from this grievance?
    10·1 answer
  • Write a claim supporting Linda brown and three reasons
    5·1 answer
  • Which of the following is a policy that many people find disturbing
    15·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!