It's based on the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This prohibits the states and various political parties from putting voting qualifications or any other requirements in order to proceed with voting. Take note that this is all for the sake of the Civil Rights of the citizen so that everyone will be able to have a fair way to vote - regardless of status and color.
Before this happened, take note that only a few African Americans had access to voting. There were even tests conducted to see if they are worthy for voting - indicating a bias in their colored race.
Answer:
Les gens entreprenaient un pèlerinage pour de nombreuses raisons différentes. Ils désiraient souvent voir et toucher des lieux et des objets considérés comme saints. De plus, les gens ont visité les lieux saints en pénitence pour avoir commis un péché. Enfin, les gens sont allés en pèlerinage juste pour voyager.
Explanation:
Hope this helps..
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.
The Berlin Conference of 1884–1885, also known as the Congo Conference or West Africa Conference, regulated European colonization and trade in Africa during the New Imperialism period and coincided with Germany's sudden emergence as an imperial power.
In conclusion, The Berlin conference was significant due to the major role it had in the colonization of Africa. It gave European nations the opportunity to take control of Africa and disregard the Natives that were there before them and just do what they wanted to do.
I DEFINITELY wrote that by myself... right?
