Answer:
Explanation:
The Impact of Emmett Till's Murder. By 1955, African Americans across the country, including in the segregated South, had begun the struggle for justice. Emmett Till's murder was a spark in the upsurge of activism and resistance that became known as the Civil Rights movement.
Montesquieu most likely influenced this quote. Montesquieu believed in the separation of powers, meaning the branches of government would be independent of one another and have individual responsibilities. His ideas influenced this quote from Madison by stating that if all governmental branches were not separate, they would cause conflict and there would be an extreme imbalance of power, which would explain Madison’s monicker of “tyranny”.
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
The answer is <u>b) It increased federal intervention in the affairs of independent states.</u>
By the time these federal Acts were enacted in the U.S., several Northern states had already abolished slavery but it was legal in the Southern states. The Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850 allowed for the capture and return of runaway slaves within the territory of the United States, aiming to prevent that the Northern states would become safe havens for runaway slaves.
The last act was more rigid in their provision and stated more regulation, including the guarantee of harsher punishments for anyone interfering in runaways slave's capture, the right of slave owners and their “agents” to search for escaped slaves within the borders of free states and compelled citizens to assist in their capture as well. It also denied slaves the right to a jury trial, among others.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 implied much government's intervention in the state's affairs, and this angered most northern states. They responded by intentionally neglecting the law or creating acts that nullified or that protected black people, the so-called "personal liberty laws", and by making great efforts to assist runaway slaves, among others.
