Answer:
slave revolts!
Explanation:
Hello!
Slave owners lived in constant fear of slave revolts, and justly so. The average holding varied between four and six slaves, and at the peak of slavery in the US slaves occupied more than 20% of the population. If slaves were to get fed up with their horrible situation they might be able to overpower their masters and begin freeing slaves from other plantations. These fears were further amplified by the Hattian Rebellion in 1791 in which the local slaves brutally killed 75,000 French citizens, gaining their freedom in the process. Many in the United States feared that a similar situation would unfold if their slaves rebelled en masse.
Hope This Helps!
H.M
More info:
https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/25577
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Haitian-Revolution
Republic is a form or model of political organization that originated in ancient Rome, in the 6th century BC, after the overthrow of the last Etruscan king, Tarquinio, who had influence over the region of Lazio, on the Italic Peninsula, where Rome is located. The end of the monarchy in Rome was caused by a political coup by the patrician aristocracy of the city.
It is from the structure of the Roman Republic that the main modern political institutions, such as Parliament, derived from members representing the population, were derived. Parliament, today, makes up the political structure of both presidential regimes (in which the president is the head of government and the head of state at the same time), like the American, and of monarchist regimes, such as the Kingdom United and Japan (in which the head of state is the monarch, and the head of government is the prime minister). There is also the variant of the mixed model, presidential parliamentarism, in which the president is the head of state, and the prime minister, the head of government.
In ancient Rome, the senate and assemblies constituted this “parliamentary body”. From the senators came the authority over the magistrates, who had administrative functions according to their rank and jurisdiction, similarly to what happens today with the members of the republican executive branch. Among the positions of the judiciary in the Roman Republic were consuls (the highest rank), praetors, censors, quaestors, edis and, on specific occasions, such as wartime, the dictator.
Answer:
Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare that acts of the other branches of government are unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable. For example if Congress were to pass a law banning newspapers from printing information about certain political matters, courts would have the authority to rule that this law violates the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. State courts also have the power to strike down their own state’s laws based on the state or federal constitutions.
Today, we take judicial review for granted. In fact, it is one of the main characteristics of government in the United States. On an almost daily basis, court decisions come down from around the country striking down state and federal rules as being unconstitutional. Some of the topics of these laws in recent times include same sex marriage bans, voter identification laws, gun restrictions, government surveillance programs and restrictions on abortion.
Other countries have also gotten in on the concept of judicial review. A Romanian court recently ruled that a law granting immunity to lawmakers and banning certain types of speech against public officials was unconstitutional. Greek courts have ruled that certain wage cuts for public employees are unconstitutional. The legal system of the European Union specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Union the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is also afforded to the courts of Canada, Japan, India and other countries. Clearly, the world trend is in favor of giving courts the power to review the acts of the other branches of government.
However, it was not always so. In fact, the idea that the courts have the power to strike down laws duly passed by the legislature is not much older than is the United States. In the civil law system, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. In the (British) common law system, on which American law is based, judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. However, as Britain has no Constitution, the principle that a court could strike down a law as being unconstitutional was not relevant in Britain. Moreover, even to this day, Britain has an attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy. Therefore, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike down legislation.
Explanation:
nationalparalegal.edu /JudicialReview.aspx
My answer is c.They created an opportunity for
followers to profess their faith and commitment to God. Many settlers
during this period had difficulty finding a place to profess their faith. There were no churches to say mass and there
were few ministers. Holding these camps
enabled them to profess their faith.
