Chief Justice John Marshall stated last 1803 in the case of Marbury v. Madison that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."
It implies that the judicial department applies the law and the understanding and interpretation therein would still be based on the designated person. If soever, the interpreter or representative in the judicial department would make any conflict with the intent, process, actual application of the law (the two representation of law), the courts would be the end to finalize the decision.
It gave the government the power to try to raise farm prices by setting production quotas and paying farmers to plant less food.- Seemed ridiculous to hungry Americans to pay farmers to not provide food and only property owning farmers actually saw the benefits of the Act (particularly affected African Americans poorly).- Supreme Court struck down the Act in U.S. vs Butler due to direct government intervention in economy
Answer:
migration occurred by land and sea
If I remember correctly yes
<span />
