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.
Explanation:
Given the scope of violence in Mexico, calculating its economic impact is necessary to assess the financial burden it places on the country's society.
According to the 2018 Mexico Peace Index (MPI), the cost of violence in Mexico in 2017 was 4.72 trillion pesos (US $249 billion).
This is the equivalent of 21% of the country's gross domestic product.
Given the high cost of violence, Mexico's investment in its prevention is surprisingly low.
In 2017, the federal government set aside only 1% of GDP for public order and safety expenditures.
Spanish:
Dado el alcance de la violencia en México, el cálculo de su impacto económico es necesario para evaluar la carga financiera que representa para la sociedad del país.
Según el Índice de Paz de México (IPM) 2018, el costo de la violencia en México en 2017 fue de 4.72 mil millones de pesos (US $ 249 mil millones).
Esto es equivalente al 21% del producto interno bruto del país.
Dado el alto costo de la violencia, la inversión de México en su prevención es sorprendentemente baja.
En 2017, el gobierno federal reservó solo el 1% del PIB para los gastos de orden público y de seguridad.
Answer:
to locate food
to identify water sources
to escape droughts
to escape natural disasters, such as floods
to find resources to make tools
Explanation:
2. George Washington and James Madison
Keep track of the sources you consult in your research