Louisiana Purchase summary: The United States bought 828,000 square miles of land from France in 1803. The French controlled this region from 1699 until 1762 when it became Spanish property because France gave it to Spain as a present, since they were allies. But under Napoleon Bonaparte, France revived the aspirations to build an empire in North America so the territory was taken back in 1800. However, those big plans were not meant to be because Napoleon needed to concentrate on preparations for war with the British Empire and so the land was sold to the United States. The price was 15 million dollars.
The purchased territory included the whole of today’s Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska, parts of Minnesota and Louisiana west of Mississippi River, including New Orleans, big parts of North and northeastern New Mexico, South Dakota, northern Texas, some parts of Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado as well as portions of Canadian provinces Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Thomas Jefferson was the American president at the time of the Louisiana Purchase. The United States initially wanted to buy only New Orleans and the land around it. The purchase met with the strong opposition in the States on account of being unconstitutional. Those accusations were accurate, at least to some extent. President Jefferson couldn’t deny that the Constitution of the United States did not provide for acquiring new territories but still he decided to proceed with the purchase since the removal of French presence in the region was such an important issue.
The supreme court decision under John Marshall leadership have extended federal powers, but not too much in the sense of destroying the federalist idea that brought the United States together. Marshall was guided by a strong commitment to judicial power and by a belief in the supremacy of national over state legislatures. His judicial vision was very much in keeping with the Federalist political program in line with the constitution.
It can be argued that someone not elected should not have power to shape government and law through the Expansion of the Judiciary in 1801, but the Marshall Court, and this decision in particular, established the principle of "judicial review" whereby Congressional laws and executive actions may be judged by the Supreme Court to be within the bounds of the Constitution.
It is definitely not appropriate that a political party ideology is implemented through the judiciary, however, In keeping with John Marshall's Federalist views, they generally favored strong government action and especially supported the supremacy of the federal government over state authorities as long as it was constitutional.
Answer:
The Ninety-five Theses led to the Reformation, a break with the Catholic Church that declared hegemony in Western Europe. Humanism and the Renaissance then played a direct role in sparking the Reformation, as well as in many other contemporaneous religious debates and conflicts.
Explanation:
Answer:
i dont have it all but
Explanation:
Second paragraph: Discuss the separation of powers and checks and balances. Use examples to explain the difference between the two ideas.
Congress can approve a bill that will then be sent to the President but the president can veto the bill if they dont like it, no matter what.
Third paragraph: Discuss the position of the Federalists related to ratification of the Constitution. Use facts.
Federalists think Constitution already limits powers of government, and we don’t need a Bill of Rights
Fourth paragraph: Discuss the position of the Anti-Federalists related to ratification of the Constitution. Use facts.
The Anti-Federalists Will not ratify Constitution unless it has a Bill of Rights. They feel like the government is too strong and the Constitution does not provide enough protection
