Jenshdhrbrhdhdjjrjrjdjdjjdjdjdjdjd
Hi. I am assuming you had a multiple choice question because of the way your sentence is written? The Domestic Policy is not a part of the U.S. foreign policy.
Hope this helps.
Take care,
Diana
The answer is C.) Executed rivals and imprisoned dissenters.
The simple answer to your complex question is NO. This is assuming that you live in a country where there are good laws (remember that history is full of bad governments that implemented bad laws) and that law enforcement is effective. Simplisticly, you should only ask yourself this question when your or your families life is being threatened and law enforcement is not around. Your response must still be within the constraints of your laws or you will find yourself in hot water. I'm not even going to try to discuss the ethics and morals that can apply as the situation can vary immensely. Keep it simple - don't operate outside the law, rather fight against unjust laws.
Answer:
It ruled against Dred Scott and set aside the Missouri Compromise and popular sovereignty.
Explanation:
The case Dred Scott v. Sanford argued whether a slave can obtain his freedom when he step on a state that make slavery illegal.
It happened in 1857. At that time, Dred Scott's (A slave) was taken by his owner from Missouri to Illinois. (According to Missouri compromise, It is still legal to own slaves in Missouri but It is Illegal to do so in Illinois).
Scott tried to make his case to the court stating that as soon as he entered Illinois, his status as a slave should be voided and he should be considered as a citizen.
At that time, The Missouri supreme court ruled against Scott's plead. The court stated that he could never be a citizen since citizenship only apply to white people. So he's still a slave no matter where his slave owner took him.
