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
Stels [109]
3 years ago
13

The 19th century doctrine of nullification (the opposite of the supremacy clause) support the belief that

History
2 answers:
kolezko [41]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

D - States have the right to decide whether or not federal laws will be followed within their borders.

Explanation:

The Doctrine of Nullification is a famous one in the United State of America. It basically anchors on the central idea that a state has the legal right under its jurisdiction to repudiate or accept any laws promulgated or enacted by the federal government on matters bordering on the state.

Among the options so enlisted, option D aptly captures this central theme.

Option A deviate from the central theme as the issue of Congress has nothing to do with the acceptance of the state or not. It is done at the central level. It is however the products of such Congress that can be contested and challenged at the state level.

Option B speaks on Commerce at both state and interstate level. This is true constitutionally. However, this is easily contested under the 19th doctrine of nullification at the state level.

Option C tows same thought process option A and B, as it clearly show a departure at the central theme the doctrine of nullification is built upon.

Doctrine of Nullification simply reserves the right to directly influence the administration of laws and governance at respective state levels. This is the underlying basis. Any actions thus enacted by the central government will be viewed from same prism.

inessss [21]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

states have the right to decide whether or not federal laws will be followed within their borders

Explanation:

The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause clearly stated that federal law is the ‘supreme Law of the Land. Despite the arguments against the theory of nullification, state governments have continued to uphold the theory of nullification, citing that they have the powers to declare certain federal governments’ laws to be null and void.

Certain crisis around nullification was seen in the history of the united states around 1832 between the federal government of the country and south Carolina because the state moved to declare null and void the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 .

You might be interested in
Why are bananas curved? Answer Correctly, get brainliest.
patriot [66]

Answer:

Because they grow towards the sun

Explanation:

4 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What's a reason that a Soldier would go on the Silk Road in Ancient China?​
ANTONII [103]

Answer:

The Silk Road was important because it helped to generate trade and commerce between a number of different kingdoms and empires. This helped for ideas, culture, inventions, and unique products to spread across much of the settled world.

4 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Mary and her spuse William III were summoned as monarchs to replace James II, but only after they agreed to rule by a __________
Readme [11.4K]

Answer: Bill of rights.

Explanation:

Bill of right is a constitution which allows the rights and liberties of individuals, such right includes freedom of speech, association, religion, etc.

7 0
3 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
3 years ago
What was the goal of creating a year-long daylight savings time during the oil embargo? A. to make it a hassle for everyone B. t
Alexxandr [17]
I think that the goal of creating a year-long daylight savings time during the oil embargo is C. to lower the consumption of oil
6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which of the following is true regarding the French and Indian War? A. The British were angry with the French because of their i
    9·1 answer
  • For how many years did the Etruscans control Rome? a. 59 years c. 141 years b. 163 years d. 202 years
    8·2 answers
  • (Please answer ASAP! NEED TO FINISH TEST! 20 points!) Please match the correct word to the correct definition.
    5·1 answer
  • What were the bases for many of the early 1800s reform movements? A. religion and optimism B. politics and pessimism C. culture
    15·2 answers
  • Great britain entered world war i when germany invaded a neutral country on its way to attack france. which neutral country did
    7·2 answers
  • Plz help me I am timed
    10·1 answer
  • The original two-party system in the U.S.was made up of the ___________ and the ____________.
    15·2 answers
  • Even though the United States refused to sign the Versailles Treaty, thereby isolating themselvex diplomatically, they were stil
    6·1 answer
  • How did Harriet Tubman’s life impact history?
    13·2 answers
  • What was an effect of the dropping of atomic bombs in Japan
    8·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!