1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Taya2010 [7]
2 years ago
13

Which of the following was not a characteristic of the Chickasaw’s first written constitution (that of 1856)?

History
1 answer:
STALIN [3.7K]2 years ago
3 0

Option D. It banned slavery in the Indian Territory was not the feature of Chickasaw's constitution.

The Constitution clearly says " The legislature has no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, nor without paying their owners previous to such emancipation a full equivalent in money for the slave so emancipated".

You might be interested in
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unne
MaRussiya [10]

As we celebrate the 4th of July, let's ask the question: Did the Framers make a mistake by amending the Constitution with the Bill of Rights? Would Americans have more liberty today had there not been a Bill of Rights? You say, "Williams, what's wrong with you? America without the Bill of Rights is unthinkable!" Let's look at it.

After the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there were intense ratification debates about the proposed Constitution. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton expressed grave reservations about Thomas Jefferson's, George Mason's and others insistence that the Constitution be amended by the Bill of Rights. It wasn't because they had little concern with liberty guarantees. Quite to the contrary they were concerned about the loss of liberties.

Alexander Hamilton expressed his concerns in Federalist Paper No. 84, "[B]ills of rights . . . are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks, "For why declare that things shall not be done [by Congress] which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given [to Congress] by which restrictions may be imposed?" Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gives it authority to do. Powers not granted belong to the people and the states. Another way of putting Hamilton's concern: why have an amendment prohibiting Congress from infringing on our right to play hopscotch when the Constitution gives Congress no authority to infringe upon our hopscotch rights in the first place.

Alexander Hamilton added that a Bill of Rights would "contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more [powers] than were granted. . . . [it] would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power." Going back to our hopscotch example, those who would usurp our God-given liberties might enact a law banning our playing hide-and-seek. They'd justify their actions by claiming that nowhere in the Constitution is there a guaranteed right to play hide-and-seek. They'd say, "hopscotch yes, but hide-and-seek, no."

To mollify Alexander Hamilton's fears about how a Bill of Rights might be used as a pretext to infringe on human rights, the Framers added the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Boiled down to its basics, the Ninth Amendment says it's impossible to list all of our God-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress. Applying the Ninth Amendment to our example: just because playing hopscotch is listed and hide-and-seek is not doesn't mean that we don't have a right to play hide-and-seek.

How do courts see the Ninth Amendment today? It's more than a safe bet to say that courts, as well as lawyers, treat the Ninth Amendment with the deepest of contempt. In fact, I believe, that if any appellant's lawyer argued Ninth Amendment protections on behalf of his client, he would be thrown out of court if not disbarred. That's what the Ninth Amendment has come to mean today. I believe we all have a right to privacy, but how do you think a Ninth Amendment argument claiming privacy rights would fly with information gathering agencies like the Internal Revenue Service? Try to assert your rights to privacy in dealing with the IRS and other government agencies and I'll send you cigarettes and candy while you're in jail.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
The great pyramids at Giza are remarkable structures because __________. A.they are still the most massive structures ever built
Readme [11.4K]
The great pyramids at Giza are remarkable structures because B.engineers have not figured out how they were built without modern technology .
8 0
3 years ago
helppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
blondinia [14]

Answer:

Terrorism

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Write an editorial that responds to George Washington's Farewell Address. Explain whether or not you think Washington was correc
nikitadnepr [17]
In my opinion, George Washington's Farewell Address was a fair and clear warning against political parties/alliances. The reason being is because, having all these alliances and political parties would cause a war. If everyone stated their opinions, and someone doesn't like it, then they will fight about it until the conflict is resolved. Republicans formed a number of societies and clubs throughout the nation, which spread criticism of Washington's political decisions. This caused the birth of the Republican Party after Thomas Jefferson resigned from Washington's cabinet. Washington was against the Federalists which caused a little conflict with the Republican Party. Further more, more evidence provides that Washington's address was a fair warning, due to the fact that more conflict grew in his later term of presidency. Battles raged in the press, attacking one's political views. All in all, i would say that Washington's Farewell Address was a fair, and clear warning. It was correct in my opinion. hope this helped, have an amazing day :)<span />
3 0
3 years ago
Which of the following best explains why the Soviet Union supported movements such as the one described in the passage ?
gulaghasi [49]

Answer:

There is no answer, because I can not see the passage you are talking about. Sorry

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What led British soldiers to fire on Boston townspeople on March 5, 1770? (+80)
    8·1 answer
  • Multiple choice!! What does dual sovereignty mean?
    6·2 answers
  • How did the allies finally defeat the axis powers?
    5·1 answer
  • Which act of Congress allowed for a draft of military-age men to become soldiers?
    15·1 answer
  • Which of the following factors led to the development of the Black Power movement within the civil rights movement?
    6·2 answers
  • HELP ME NOW OR I WILL CRY IF YOU DO HELP I WOULD GIVE THE BRAIN OF KNOWLEDGE TO YOU
    10·1 answer
  • What are Ichabod Crane character traits
    14·1 answer
  • What similarity do Marx and Engels see between industrial society and feudal society?
    7·1 answer
  • Which nations belonged to the Triple Entente? Austria Britain France Germany the United States Russia
    10·2 answers
  • The Supreme Court chooses to hear cases that __________.
    8·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!