Answer:
During the years 1820-1850, the north and south had quite different daily lives. On the north side, working conditions were terrible as the factory system was developing. As the working conditions had worsened while the factory system was developing many people had lost their jobs which means they couldn't make money to help survive and raise their families. On the south side, cotton was extremely popular to them. Farming was the source of income and food to many people on the south side.
Explanation:
Not sure this is the answer you are looking for. If it's not please let me know what exactly you are looking for and I'll be more than happy to help you out. :)
Answer:
Explanation:
Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.[1] To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or state ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states.[2] The vote of each state (to either ratify or reject a proposed amendment) carries equal weight, regardless of a state's population or length of time in the Union. Article V is silent regarding deadlines for the ratification of proposed amendments, but most amendments proposed since 1917 have included a deadline for ratification. Legal scholars generally agree that the amending process of Article V can itself be amended by the procedures laid out in Article V, but there is some disagreement over whether Article V is the exclusive means of amending the Constitution.
Answer:
A. School prayer was banned in public schools across the United
States.
Explanation:
In the case of Engel v. Vitale (1962), the court defined as contradicting the Constitution the development by a certain agency of the State of New York of the text of the prayer for students of a free high school. Although the prayer was clearly neutral from the point of view of faiths, the Supreme Court firmly stated that officially supported religious events were tantamount to introducing a state religion and therefore contrary to the Constitution.
