<span>
Que la primera guerra mundial fue consecuencia directa del nuevo
imperialismo de las principales potencias del siglo XIX, la más
interesada en la guerra era Reino Unido ya q Alemania estaba emergiendo
desde su unificación como la primera potencia y amenazaba fuertemente su
industria y marina, la otra gran interesada era Francia ya q después d
la derrota en la guerra franco prusiana quería la revancha para
recuperar Alsacia y Lorena, ahora a todo este ambiente d tención
cualquier pretexto era bueno para comenzar la guerra, pero en si lo q
pretendía el imperialismo d principios del siglo XX era tener el mayor
número d colonias para tener el mayor número d productos para la
industria.
El imerialismo antes d la segunda guerra mundial no fue el mismo q en el
caso anterior, ya q el mundo apenas se recuperaba de la crisis d 1929,
fue en esta época cuando Reino Unido alcanzo su máxima extensión
colonial sin embargo aquí el detonante fue la ideología d Hitler d
recuperar territorios perdidos y d expandir Alemania lo q causó la
Segunda Guerra Mundial cuando invadio Polonia, cabe destacar q después d
la segunda guerra mundial la mayoría d los países africanos y d las
colonias británicas se independizaron </span>
Congress and the Judiciary Act of 1789<span>
When the First Congress turned to the organization of the judicial branch, much of the debate centered on whether to establish lower federal courts or to rely on existing state courts to exercise federal jurisdiction. Advocates of a strong central government thought a national system of federal courts was an essential requirement for energetic government. Other members of Congress, recalling the colonial experience under British rule, thought that justice was best served by courts tied to local communities. Those who were suspicious of the concentration of national power wanted to grant state courts authority to hear all cases involving federal law or to limit local federal courts to admiralty and maritime law. The judiciary act approved in September 1789 established a federal court system with broad jurisdiction, but the act reserved a significant role for state courts and guaranteed that the diversity of legal traditions throughout the country would be recognized in the local federal courts.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 established three types of federal courts. The Supreme Court, with a chief justice and five associate justices, would meet twice a year in the nation’s capital and hear appeals from lower federal courts and from the state supreme courts. The Supreme Court would also exercise the limited original jurisdiction defined by the Constitution. In each state and in Kentucky and Maine (then parts of other states), a district court with a single judge would have exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases involving admiralty and maritime law and conduct trials of minor federal crimes. The district courts shared with the state courts jurisdiction over small suits brought by the United States.
The most important federal cases would be initiated in the third type of court, called circuit courts, which would convene in the same judicial districts in which the district courts met. The circuit courts had no judges of their own, but were served by two Supreme Court justices and the local district judge. (Congress soon revised the law to require only one justice on each circuit court.) Congress grouped the judicial districts into regional circuits for the purpose of assigning justices to serve on the circuit courts within that region. The circuit courts would hear some appeals from the district courts, but they were primarily trial courts. The circuit courts had exclusive jurisdiction over serious federal crimes and shared with the state courts jurisdiction over suits involving disputes above a certain monetary value, suits involving the U.S. government, and suits between citizens of different states.
Congress protected distinctive state legal traditions by drawing the judicial districts to coincide with state boundaries and by providing for the use of the respective state’s rules for most district and circuit court proceedings and for the selection of federal juries. Perhaps most important for protection of regional legal cultures, the assignment of “circuit riding” duties for Supreme Court justices ensured that the judges on the nation’s highest court would learn about local legal procedures and would interact with citizens at the point where cases entered the federal judicial system. The Judiciary Act also promoted a local orientation of the lower courts by requiring district judges to live in the district where they served. In response to widespread concerns that defendants in federal trials would be forced to appear in distant courts, the Judiciary Act required civil trials to be held in the district in which a defendant was served with a writ and trials involving the death penalty to be held in the county where the crime occurred.
I hope all this helps I am taking judicial law in school .
</span>
Answer. Unlimited government
Explanation:
Answer:
The answer is Backstage Behavior.
Explanation:
How we act back stage is liberated from the desires and standards that shape our conduct when we are front stage. Being at home rather than out in broad daylight, or at work or school, is the clearest boundary of the contrast among front and back stage in social life. Given this, we are regularly more loose and agreeable when back stage, we let our protect down, and we may be what we consider our uninhibited or "genuine" selves. We push off components of our appearance required for a front stage execution, such as swapping work garments for easygoing garments and lounge-wear and perhaps change the manner in which we talk and comport our bodies.
Answer:
Substantive due process
Explanation:
The substantive due process theory of the constitutional law that prohibit the government from violating the rights of the defendant during the due process.
The first amendment protect the government to prevent the citizens from exercising their free will. Since on the case above the dog fighting is not illegal in japan , the defendant could make a case that the government is violating first amendment during the due process (since he is not informed why he is sentenced from exercising activities that he believed as legal) and can be used as a basis for his appeal.
