Answer:
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.
Explanation:
The 1831 Supreme Court case of the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was a court ruling between the Cherokee Nation, the petitioners, against the state of Georgia, the respondent.
In this court case, the Cherokees filed a complaint against the State of Georgia, asking if the state has any jurisdiction to impose laws on the Nation. This was because the state has promised Cherokee lands to Georgian settlers if they settle in the state. The court decided that since the Cherokees are a dependent nation, it cannot make any decision as it has no jurisdiction over the case. Thus, this means that the Cherokee Nation cannot have any legal recourse to stop the state from taking their lands. This case was then followed up by the 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling where the court ruled in favor of the Cherokee people.
Thus, the correct answer is Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.
Answer:
see what happened was i was angry.im sorry i broke your nose and you must be in a lot of pain.it is wrong that i assaulted you because i shouldnt have laid hands on you in the first place even if im angry.im truly very sorry for my actions towards you and in the future i know to keep my hands to my self even if im angry.
Explanation:
can i get brainliest
Answer:
all of the above
Explanation:
I hope it helps. please mark as brainliest
Hazirah can legally claim the remaining balance of Intan's debt because there was no acceptance of the offer from Johan that the part-payment should serve as full settlement.
<h3>What is the law of contract?</h3>
The law of contract deals with the enforcement of promises when certain elements are present. These contract elements include offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention.
Intan should remember that a valid and enforceable contract has conditions. We cannot claim there is an implied acceptance of Johan's offer. Johan cannot modify the contract terms between Intan and Hazirah because he was not a party to the contract.
Lastly, Johan did not offer any consideration for Hazirah to forfeit the balance of RM5,000. And Hazirah remained silent during Johan's informal negotiations without communicating her acceptance.
Thus, there was <u>no </u><u>contract</u><u> </u>between Johan and Hazirah, and Intan should do well to repay the balance.
Learn more about the elements of a contract at brainly.com/question/8116487
This statement is false.
Since the middle of the 1960s, the expansion of social welfare programs has been a major concern for American domestic politics.
Conservatives criticized the continuous growth of these programs, saying it had put an unacceptably high cost on the American taxpayers while doing little to help the poor's long-term concerns.
Reagan quickly slowed the rate of growth in domestic spending after being elected president in 1980 in part due to dissatisfaction with social programs.
Reagan has maintained that his budget-cutting initiatives are primarily intended to benefit low-income people who have been able to generate significant incomes by fusing their work-related gains with federal funding and "inkind" benefits.
The "really needy"—those with the lowest incomes—would be exempt from budget cuts. In February 1981, Reagan remarked, "Those who, through no fault of their own, must depend on the rest of us, the poor, the handicapped, the aged, all those with actual need, can rest confident that the social safety net of programs they depend on are exempt from any reduction."
To know more about Reagan, visit:
brainly.com/question/4784629
#SPJ4
