The awnser is b because needed money, goods, and land to build an empire and therefore had to tax
Answer:
Explanation:
You wouldn't have to ask the question if you lived in the United States during the Vietnam war. Nothing, no event since the civil war a century earlier, split the American people more than Vietnam.
Basically there were a number of things that it did.
1. Those fighting it were split about going over. Many college educated students would have enlisted immediately after Pearl Harbor in WWII. Those same class of people would not be persuaded that way during Vietnam
2. It gave rise to the civil rights movement. The colored didn't want to go to Vietnam, or not all of them. Those who were opposed, especially the colored, sympathized with organizations like the Black Panthers or the Peace movement headed by Martin Luther King.
3. It brought the war into American living rooms. I can still remember seeing the shooting of a Viet Cong prisoner. At the time, it was extremely graphic and if I may say so, very horrifying.
4. The white middle class was equally upset by Vietnam. There were rallies on the University campuses where the numbers were in the tens of thousands. My mother 79 at the time, insisted on going to one. She was not disappointed. The keynote speaker was Jane Fonda. The body count was just too high not to upset just about everyone.
5. Then there was Kent State. You would do well to look that up.
<span>By defeating the British in New Orleans during the War of 1812</span>
Answer:
B) Judiciary Act of 1789.
Explanation:
John Marshall ruled on this case as the Chief Justice. He first answered that Marbury had a right to his job because it had been signed and approved. The actual delivery was a custom, not a requirement. He then ruled that a writ of mandamus (a type of court order) was the correct way for Marbury to rule. Finally, he noted that the Judiciary Act of 1789 allowed the Supreme Court to make this kind of ruling.
<em>The next question was who could decide this issue. Marshall ruled that the Supreme Court could decide it because the Judiciary Act of 1789 said that they could. However, Marshall said that a section of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional. That section allowed the Supreme Court to make a writ but the United States Constitution did not. Therefore, that section was unconstitutional and the Supreme Court could not make a writ for Marbury.
</em>
Marshall looking over the Constitution and the statute is judicial review, a statement that the Supreme Court had an independent power to determine whether something was constitutional or not.
