Answer:
Explanation:
This refers to the story of aspiring sculptures, Giovanni de Nowheresville, and Mario de Wealthton. They had the same start at the same university, however, their lives afterward were very much different.
<u>Mario returned to his coast city which was rich because of the number of merchants</u>. The number of well-off people was large and they could afford to have art pieces in their home, therefore Mario was often hired to create sculptures. First, he made them by the order, and afterward, he would make the name for himself and he would make them as he wanted.
<u>Giovanni, however, returned to his small town that was centered around farming.</u> He had to work at the farm to support himself, so he finished sculptures slowly. No one in his environment had money to spend on the art, so Giovanni couldn't earn off it and could never make it as famous artists.
<u>Therefore, we see that the key was the environment and the opportunity each of the artists had - Mario became successful because he lived in a rich environment that could support him, and he had the change to live off from art, while Giovanni had to farm for a living and his environment did not have money for the art pieces. </u>
<u></u>
The fourth of July is the day of freedom for the people of America. In the speech, Douglas comments on the celebration of the day and says that to celebrate such a day is very ironical. He says that the celebration of freedom which the people are celebrating is in reality still under slavery. Hopefully this helps :)
Answer:As World War II transformed both the United States and the USSR, turning the nations into formidable world powers, competition between the two increased. Following the defeat of the Axis powers, an ideological and political rivalry between the United States and the USSR gave way to the start of the Cold War.
Explanation:
Manifest Destiny is the belief that Americans were destined to expand across North America from coast to coast.
The Emancipation Proclamation is an executive order by Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves.
The Monroe Doctrine was a United States policy of opposing European colonialism into the Americas.
Lastly, The Louisiana Purchase was the purchase of the Louisiana territory by the US from France.
Manifest Destiny is the best answer.
Answer:
Marbury: Was appointed as a federal judge - Supported the Judiciary Act of 1789 - Argued for original jurisdiction.
-Madison: Refused to honor an appointment.Explanation:
Marbury v. Madison was a judicial case resolved by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1803. It arose as a result of a political dispute following the presidential elections of 1800, in which Thomas Jefferson, who was a Democratic Republican, defeated then-President John Adams, who was a federalist. In the last days of the outgoing government of Adams, the Congress, dominated by the federalists, established a series of judicial positions, among them 42 justices the of peace for the District of Columbia. The Senate confirmed the appointments, the president signed them and the Secretary of State was in charge of sealing and delivering the appointment documents. In the last-minute hustle and bustle, the outgoing secretary of state did not deliver the minutes of appointment to four justices of the peace, including William Marbury.
The new secretary of state under President Jefferson, James Madison, refused to deliver the minutes of appointment as the new government was irritated by the maneuver of the federalists of trying to secure control of the judiciary with the appointment of members of their party just before ceasing in government. However, Marbury appealed to the Supreme Court to order Madison to deliver his record.
If the Court ruled in favor of Marbury, Madison could still refuse to deliver the record and the Supreme Court would have no way to enforce the order. If the Court ruled against Marbury, it risked submitting the judiciary to Jefferson's supporters by allowing them to deny Marbury the position he could legally claim. Chief Justice John Marshall resolved this dilemma by deciding that the Supreme Court was not empowered to settle this case. Marshall ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, which granted the Court these powers, was unconstitutional because it extended the original jurisdiction of the Court to the jurisdiction defined by the Constitution itself. Having decided not to intervene in this particular case, the Supreme Court secured its position as final arbiter of the law.
