I would say A) evolving attitudes of the public, D) current events, and E) ideologies of individual justices.
I don't think B is correct because the judicial branch is supposed to act as a check against the executive branch and therefore cannot be instructed to rule a certain way by any president, and I don't think C is correct because changes to the bill of rights would have less impact on interpretation of the constitution and more of an impact on the constitution/law itself
People got mad, but happy at the same time
Answer:
Lumber iron and whale oil
Explanation:
Answer:
After the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, there was a backlash against the Federalist Party because Americans believed the party wanted the northern states to <u>secede</u> from the United States and join with Britain.
Explanation:
The Treaty of Ghent, signed on 24 December 1814, was a peace treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom that put an end to the War of 1812 (1812-1815). The Treaty ceased all hostilities, restored the borders between the United States and British North America (which would later Canada) to prewar status, and restored diplomatic relations between both countries.
The War of 1812 wasn't popular in many northern states of the US, especially in New England, as the war had crippled the New England economy because of its major economic and trade links with British North America. The then ruling party in New England, the Federalist Party, opposed the war because of this and campaigned for peace with the British. When the <u>Treaty of Ghent was signed, there was a backlash against the Federalist Party, as Americans from other states believed the party wanted the northern states to secede from the United States and join with Britain</u>. However, the Federalists in New England took a moderate position, as they recognized that any moves towards secession would likely trigger a major conflict, and they worked towards restoring trade with the British instead.
the Contras would be your answer
