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
vredina [299]
3 years ago
7

What do the first three words in the Preamble to the Constitution mean?

History
2 answers:
algol [13]3 years ago
5 0
The people are in charge of the government
umka2103 [35]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

Explanation:

The first three words are "We The People" this means that citizens of the united states of America- I means the people who are being ruled by the Government while it serves the people for their cause.

the people are in charge of the government

You might be interested in
Why did Hamilton use the words "insurgent" and "insurrection" to describe the events in Pennsylvania
Nataly_w [17]

In the summer of 1794, tensions between farmers and creditors in western Pennsylvania boiled over into violence. A group of armed farmers, calling themselves the "Associators," began to attack and seize the property of anyone they saw as an enemy. In response, President George Washington dispatched a force of 13,000 militiamen to put down the rebellion.

In a report to Congress, Alexander Hamilton described the events in Pennsylvania as an "insurgent" and "insurrection." By using these words, Hamilton was trying to downplay the seriousness of the situation and avoid calling it a full-blown rebellion. He may have also been trying to avoid provoking even more violence by using language that was less inflammatory.

The situation in Pennsylvania was eventually resolved without any major bloodshed. However, the episode showed how quickly tensions could boil over into violence in the early days of the republic. It also showed the importance of having a strong central government that was able to quickly put down any internal threats to the stability of the country.

4 0
1 year ago
Why is the force bill significant
Tanzania [10]

Answer:

The significance of the Force Bill is that it overrode South Carolina's effort to nullify federal laws during the Nullification Crisis. ... Andrew Jackson then pushed for the Force Bill. He believed that the Constitution would be worthless if states had the right to nullify laws and/or to secede.

6 0
3 years ago
How did new urban transportation system contribute in the late 1800
Assoli18 [71]

Answer:

Wealthier people moved further away from the city centre.

Explanation:

As Industrialisation Increased, Immigration took place and city became crowded with people and workers. Due to new urban transportation wealthier people started moving farther away from city centres.

They could afford long distance travel in quick time and afford pollution free peaceful living. Social economic segregation in the 1800s led to concentration of poor and middle class people in the city centres and the American Dream.

5 0
3 years ago
HELP
torisob [31]

Answer:

At the start of the twentieth century there were approximately 250,000 Native Americans in the USA – just 0.3 per cent of the population – most living on reservations where they exercised a limited degree of self-government. During the course of the nineteenth century they had been deprived of much of their land by forced removal westwards, by a succession of treaties (which were often not honoured by the white authorities) and by military defeat by the USA as it expanded its control over the American West.  

In 1831 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, had attempted to define their status. He declared that Indian tribes were ‘domestic dependent nations’ whose ‘relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian’. Marshall was, in effect, recognising that America’s Indians are unique in that, unlike any other minority, they are both separate nations and part of the United States. This helps to explain why relations between the federal government and the Native Americans have been so troubled. A guardian prepares his ward for adult independence, and so Marshall’s judgement implies that US policy should aim to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream US culture. But a guardian also protects and nurtures a ward until adulthood is achieved, and therefore Marshall also suggests that the federal government has a special obligation to care for its Native American population. As a result, federal policy towards Native Americans has lurched back and forth, sometimes aiming for assimilation and, at other times, recognising its responsibility for assisting Indian development.

What complicates the story further is that (again, unlike other minorities seeking recognition of their civil rights) Indians have possessed some valuable reservation land and resources over which white Americans have cast envious eyes. Much of this was subsequently lost and, as a result, the history of Native Americans is often presented as a morality tale. White Americans, headed by the federal government, were the ‘bad guys’, cheating Indians out of their land and resources. Native Americans were the ‘good guys’, attempting to maintain a traditional way of life much more in harmony with nature and the environment than the rampant capitalism of white America, but powerless to defend their interests. Only twice, according to this narrative, did the federal government redeem itself: firstly during the Indian New Deal from 1933 to 1945, and secondly in the final decades of the century when Congress belatedly attempted to redress some Native American grievances.

There is a lot of truth in this summary, but it is also simplistic. There is no doubt that Native Americans suffered enormously at the hands of white Americans, but federal Indian policy was shaped as much by paternalism, however misguided, as by white greed. Nor were Indians simply passive victims of white Americans’ actions. Their responses to federal policies, white Americans’ actions and the fundamental economic, social and political changes of the twentieth century were varied and divisive. These tensions and cross-currents are clearly evident in the history of the Indian New Deal and the policy of termination that replaced it in the late 1940s and 1950s. Native American history in the mid-twentieth century was much more than a simple story of good and evil, and it raises important questions (still unanswered today) about the status of Native Americans in modern US society.

Explanation:

Plz give me brainliest worked hard

8 0
3 years ago
Hellenistic society was not influenced by Greek culture.<br> True<br> False
pav-90 [236]

Answer:

True

Explanation:

Hellenic (Greek) refers to the people who lived in classical Greece before Alexander the Great's death. ... Hellenistic (Greek-like) refers to Greeks and others who lived during the period after Alexander's conquests

3 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which are abiotic parts of an ecosystem?
    12·1 answer
  • The most common religion in India is __________.
    11·2 answers
  • How did literature in the 1920s reflect the uncertainty of the period?
    12·2 answers
  • 1. Why does Petrarch admire Livy?
    6·1 answer
  • Georgia’s executive branch includes the governor, lieutenant governor, and
    10·2 answers
  • What is most important in a representative democracy
    14·1 answer
  • Theodore Judah was an engineer who
    8·2 answers
  • A few African Americans found success in business in the mid-1800s.<br><br>A: True<br><br>B: False
    8·2 answers
  • What was the result of the Niger River's yearly flooding?
    15·2 answers
  • What is Detente ?
    5·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!