Generally speaking, Taney tended to advocate a states' rights position unlike the Marshall
court.
To add, the Taney Court refers to the
Supreme Court of the United
States from 1836 to 1864, when Roger Taney served as the
fifth Chief Justice of the United States.
The opportunity cost in this scenario is the three lost opportunities Harry experiences by deciding to go to his parents house. The term opportunity cost refers to <em>the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen. </em>The potential gain Harry may have lost by choosing to go to his parents for dinner instead could be <em>relaxation while fishing, His house painting being finished, and time spent with his friends at the birthday party. </em>These all can be considers lost opportunity due to choosing an alternate opportunity, that being dinner at his parents.
The correct answer is A.
Feudalism is a political system which was prevalent in Europe between the ninth and fifteenth centuries. The majority of privileges and rights were offered to the Upper class and level of the society. The King ruled and owned everything and had total control over all. His vassals (knights) were given some small parts of land but in exchange, they had to provide military protection. The serfs were lent land and they had to provide food and services to the upper classes.
Pro slavery advocates believed slave owners had a right to transport slaves into the territories; antislavery advocates argued that this gave slave holding settlers an unfair advantage over non-slave holding settlers.
Pro slavery advocates argued that the slave status of Kansas should be determined by popular vote; antislavery advocates argued that Kansas should be free because of its location north of the 36° 30' parallel.
Pro slavery advocates contended that free African Americans in Kansas should not be permitted rights under the state constitution; antislavery advocates argued that the federal constitution took precedence over Kansas’s state constitution.
Pro slavery advocates held that slavery in the state was legal, as established in the Missouri Compromise of 1820; antislavery advocates argued that this legislation was invalidated by the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Dred Scott case.
