1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
mixas84 [53]
3 years ago
13

1. Essential question: What will it take for women to be seen as equal to men?

History
1 answer:
alexandr1967 [171]3 years ago
7 0
Is this like my opinion or?
You might be interested in
Research about the cause and effect of the passage 19th amendment to the US constitution and explain to your reader why it is im
Aleks04 [339]

Answer:

The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted American women the right to vote, a right known as women's suffrage, and was ratified on August 18, 1920, ending almost a century of protest. ... Anthony and other activists, raised public awareness and lobbied the government to grant voting rights to women.

Explanation:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.It was ratified on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home,while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Any labels of rights as auxiliary must be viewed in the context of the inherent purpose of a Bill of Rights, which is to empower a group with the ability to achieve a mutually desired outcome, and not to necessarily enumerate or rank the importance of rights. Thus all rights enumerated in a Constitution are thus auxiliary in the eyes of Sir William Blackstone because all rights are only as good as the extent they are exercised in fact.

While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms," and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".

By January 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to the Bill of Rights to assure ratification.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In Heller, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun for self-defense. This was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments. In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare."

The debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues.

3 0
3 years ago
Businesses and consumers had more money after tax cuts. What did this result in?
Ilya [14]

Answer:

businesses being prosperous

Explanation:

If businesses and consumers had more money after tax cuts, this would result in

businesses being prosperous.

This is because, the prosperity of any business venture is directly linked to its profits or turnovers. If after tax cuts, a business still has more money, this would result in the business becoming more prosperous.

8 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did Leonard believe annexing the Philippines would be advantageous?
solniwko [45]

Answer:

They wanted to use resources that were located on the phillipines, and were scared that other countries might get there first.

Explanation:

6 0
2 years ago
Does an honorable warrior ever fight for money?
aivan3 [116]
No, they usually fight for their country and for their family.
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which of the following would have been an advantage for the Americans once they declared independence
KengaRu [80]
I think the answer choice is c but im not sure...
8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which sentence best describes how the relationship between municipal power and state power has changed over time?
    9·1 answer
  • Which situation contributed to the global economic crisis during the Great Depression
    10·2 answers
  • What is propaganda? Also please no links.
    14·1 answer
  • How did Peter the Great take over Russian government and religion?
    6·1 answer
  • What kind of scientist study Antarctic
    8·1 answer
  • Which statement best describes recent voter trends in the United States?
    5·1 answer
  • How did the Northwest Ordinance increase sectionalism in the United States?
    12·1 answer
  • HELPPP PLSSSSSsS NOW
    10·1 answer
  • Is your high school diploma a primary source or secondary source and why?
    8·1 answer
  • How many different nations got involved with the Korean war?
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!