The Dawes Act of 1887 authorized the federal government to break up tribal lands by partitioning them into individual plots. Only those Native Americans who accepted the individual allotments were allowed to become US citizens.
<h3>What is
Dawes Act?</h3>
On tribal lands within the United States, the Dawes Act of 1887 governed land rights. Its authority, which bears Senator Henry L. Dawes's name from Massachusetts, allows the President of the United States to divide communal Native American tribal landholdings into allotments for Native American family and individual heads of household.
By making Native Americans "assume a capitalist and proprietary connection with property" that did not previously exist in their cultures, this would change the traditional systems of land tenure into a system of private property that is imposed by the government. The law gave tribes the choice to sell the federal government any unclaimed lands. Before allotments of private property could be made, the government had to determine "which Indians were eligible," which prompted a "official hunt.
To learn more about Dawes Act from the given link:
brainly.com/question/1751203
#SPJ4
Answer:
Improved Cash Flow
Explanation:
On its own, a loan will improve your cash flow by giving you access to more capital. That benefit is compounded when your monthly payments are lower due to a longer loan term. By extending the length of the loan, therefore lowering your monthly payments, you have more money available each month
Answer:
Before Europeans arrived in North America, Native American groups developed into distinct and complex societies in response to the unique environments they inhabited.
Explanation:
The President (Executive Branch) has the power to appoint US Supreme Court justices and other (Article III ) federal judges. subject to approval by the Senate. He can and does choose judges who subscribe to his own legal philosophy and so can possibly shape future court opinions. The judges serve for life and their stance on future cases is hard to predict in many cases.
The president can also grant pardons for federal offenses
One is the fact that the judicial branch needs the executive branch to enforce its decisions. As an example, when the Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional in Brown v. Bd. of Education of Topeka, it took the President's ordering the National Guard out to make some states abide by the ruling. The Judicial Branch has no way to enforce its decisions without the executive's co-operation.. Another is the fact that it is the executive branch that nominates the judges in the first place. As a practical matter, presidents nominate persons who share the same political beliefs they do. This has the effect of creating (or trying to create) a judicial branch that will interpret the Constitution the way that that president would like. Trouble is, once a Supreme Court Justice is confirmed, nothing can be done to force him or her to rule in a particular way. They are appointed with lifetime tenure on good behavior and their salaries cannot be diminished while they are in office.. And as to salaries, nothing says a president has to include raises for them in any budget he proposes.
The Executive branch gets to choose candidates for federal judgeships, including Supreme Court Justices. The President also has the power to pardon people convicted of federal offenses, Since the President controls the Department of Justice, he has some leeway in how laws are enforced.
I would say <span>B) Great Britain
Hope this help.Thank You!</span>
