All categories

3 years ago

Working in the middle colonies was attractive because European immigrants

History

1 answer:

madam [21]3 years ago

5 0

Answer:

Working in the middle colonies was attractive because European immigrants wanted to farm the fertile soil. The soil of many regions in the Americas was fertile and good for farming. That was the case of the Jamestown colony in Virginia or other middle colonies such as Maryland or Pennsylvania.

Please mark me as the brainiest and thanks

You might be interested in

What evidence does reagan farewell give to support his claims

Airida [17]

Answer:

reagan farewell speech

Explanation:

learned it

7 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

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

Which of the following is an example of an expressed power?

Burka [1]

The example of an expressed power would be : B. Creating post offices

Expressed powers are the powers that directly written in constitutions. from the following options, the only viable answer is creating post offices

hope this helps

5 0

3 years ago

Complexity: L

Pavlova-9 [17]

Answer:

the equality of citizens of all ethnic origins

Explanation:

that's what they fight about.

8 0

4 years ago

Part A

IrinaK [193]

Answer:

Event Effect on Balance of Power Between Local, State, and National Governments

1787: Constitution creates the first federal system

The newly drafted Constitution included a system that would share powers between the states and the national government.

1800s: dual federalism / layer cake federalism

National and state governments have defined and separate duties, and each wields roughly the same amount of power. Called layer cake federalism because there are distinct layers.

1861–1865: Civil War

The end of the war and the beginning of Reconstruction meant greater federal involvement in issues that had often been handled by states.

1933: New Deal / cooperative federalism / marble cake federalism

New Deal programs required cooperation across all levels of government to fix national problems associated with the Great Depression. Government roles are not completely separated as with layer cake federalism. Instead, responsibilities of each level become intertwined, more like a marble cake.

1964: start of Great Society

In creating the welfare state, the national government takes on a more active role in trying to end poverty and discrimination. The federal government gives funds to states based on policy set by the national government, not by what the states say they want or need. This marks a huge increase in federal power.

1980s and 1990s: new federalism / devolution revolution

President Reagan begins a move to give more administrative powers back to states, allowing states to have more of a say in how they use grants from the national government. This move to roll back national power continues in the 1990s.

2010: progressive federalism

The federal government helps states push progressive legislation that is gridlocked at the national level, allowing Americans to use the local and state governments to push minority rights, environmental protection laws, etc.

Explanation:

ive just done the work (plato answer)

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers