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
Lena [83]
3 years ago
15

Why were the Intolerable Acts passed? A. to raise revenue for the British government. B.to declare that Parliament could levy ta

xes.C. to gain more control over the colonists. C.to decrease tension between colonists and Britain.
History
2 answers:
Bogdan [553]3 years ago
8 0

Answer:

C

Explanation:

to gain more control over the colonists

natima [27]3 years ago
8 0

Answer:

<u>The answer is C. to gain more control over the colonists.</u>

Explanation:

I took the quiz. The reason this answer is correct since Britain was very far away from the colonist, Britain wanted more control over the decisions and actions in the colonies.  

The Intolerable Acts by the American colonists, <u>were passed by Parliament in 1774 </u>in response to colonial resistance to British rule. The rest of the answers don't even make since to the question so Answer c. will help you succeed. Hope this helped explain the answer.

You might be interested in
In January of 1918 ( while the war was still going on ) president wilson announced his plan for world peace his ideas were calle
777dan777 [17]
The Fourteen Points.
This was Wilson's plan to eliminate the causes of war.
8 0
3 years ago
Why is federalism one of the central principles of american constitutionalism?
Monica [59]

Federalism is one of the central principles of American Constitutionalism because helps in the dividing and sharing of power between state and national governments, thus, making organization of the government manageable and standardized.

The other major principles of American Constitutionalism are:

Popular Sovereignty; Checks and Balances; Limited Power of the Government; Separation of Branches.

7 0
3 years ago
ILL GIVE BRAINLIEST!
scZoUnD [109]

Answer:

the technology being used in this is a news paper machice/book machie

Explanation:

used to ake stuff with words and pictures on it.

7 0
2 years ago
Understanding the Case
S_A_V [24]

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.

8 0
3 years ago
Were the differences between theories of representation in colonial America and England significant? Why or why not?
Olegator [25]
Why not is the answer hhthuujiioopppiygbb for history
5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • 3. Which of the following characteristics was required to be a citizen of Athens? nobility
    14·2 answers
  • How do you feel about 1,648 men deciding for 3.9 million people whether to ratify the Constitution?
    10·2 answers
  • What impact did the sui dynasty's unification of china have on buddhist art? science forum?
    11·1 answer
  • How did Egypt’s natural borders protect the country from invaders?
    7·2 answers
  • Use the photo below to answer the following question:
    12·2 answers
  • How is an oligarchy similar to a monarchy?
    6·2 answers
  • The Oklahoma state soll is<br> soll. The state rock is<br> Reset<br> Next
    14·2 answers
  • Focusing on a narrow range of products/services that can be produced most
    7·1 answer
  • Anne is writing a report about Bill Gates' early life. She has written an outline for her report. Which organizational structure
    5·2 answers
  • PLS HEP ITS A TEXT GIVING BRAINLIST
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!