Fact 1:
Boys were sent to school at a young age to learn how to become a scribe
Fact 2:
Most of the children that went to school to learn to become a scribe were middle class, because it cost money for the school.
Fact 3: Usually only boys of wealthy families went to school but there is evidence of some girls going to school and becoming doctors
Work they did: Scribes did many different things including copying manuscripts and other texts. They also had secretarial and administrative duties.
The nationalist inclinations of the Marshall Court were apparent in a series of decisions on the legal status of "Indian tribes" within the United States.
<h3>What is the Marshall trilogy?</h3>
Three Supreme Court rulings from the early nineteenth century, together known as the Marshall Trilogy, upheld the political and legal status of Indian tribes. The key features are-
- According to Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), private individuals were not permitted to buy land from Native Americans.
- According to Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Cherokee people were reliant on the United States and had a guardian-like relationship with them.
- The connection between tribes, state, and federal governments was outlined in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), which declared that the federal government was the only entity with the ability to deal with Indian nations.
The nationalist inclinations of the Marshall Court are shown by-
- The Marshall Court helped define the reach of the federal judiciary during the early years of the American Republic, a period known as Judicial Nationalism.
- Marshall's views on nationalism, the broad interpretation of the Constitution, property rights, and the primacy of the federal government over the idea of "states' rights" bolstered the role of the federal government and, in particular, the appellate function of the high court.
Learn more about the Marshall court, here brainly.com/question/5347746
#SPJ4
2nd I
one down. We just studied this.
Answer:
They decided to go forward with a new constitution that would completely guard against tyranny. The Constitution guarded against tyranny in several ways such as federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and the equality of large and small states.
Explanation:
Longer answer
How did the Constitution guard against tyranny? Do you know why our country isn’t ruled by one person with complete control such as a dictator? It is because of our Constitution guards against tyranny. Tyranny is defined as harsh absolute power in the hands of one individual. In 1787, 55 delegates met in Philadelphia to fix the existing constitution, the Articles of Confederation. They decided to go forward with a new Constitution that would completely guard against tyranny. The Constitution guarded against tyranny in several ways such as federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and the equality of large and small states. The first guard against tyranny was federalism, which means the division of power between the state governments and the central government. Certain power is given to the state governments, A certain power is given to the central government, and certain power is shared between the two governments. For example, powers given to the central government are powers such as regular trade, print money, declare war, and set up the post office. Powers given to the states are powers, such as to set up local governments, hold elections, and establish schools. Powers shared by the two governments are powers such as making laws, enforcing laws, and taxing. Federalism protects against tyranny. The second guard against tyranny was the separation of powers, which means the power is separated into three branches. This is done so one person or branch of government cannot become too powerful. These branches of power are separate and distinct. For example, the legislative branch consists of the Senate and House of Representatives, the executive branch.
Hope this helps!
Brain-List?
One way in which akbar trhe great, suleiman the magnificent, and philip II are similar is that they were all dictators, who generally made decisions about their populace without needing the advice of a council or the general population.
