Answer:
D
Explanation:
In 1830, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Worcester v. Georgia that Jackson was wrong. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the majority opinion that the Constitution gave to Congress, not the states, the power to make laws that applied to the Indian tribes.
Answer:Step 1. Passage by Congress. Proposed amendment language must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses.
Step 2. Notification of the states. The national archivist sends notification and materials to the governor of each state.
Step 3. Ratification by three-fourths of the states. Ratification of the amendment language adopted by Congress is an up-or-down vote in each legislative chamber. A state legislature cannot change the language. If it does, its ratification is invalid. A governor’s signature on the ratification bill or resolution is not necessary.
Step 4. Tracking state actions. Proposed amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states in order to take effect. Congress may set a time limit for state action. The official count is kept by Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives. Legislatures must return specific materials to show proof of ratification.
Step 5. Announcement. When the requisite number of states ratify a proposed amendment, the archivist of the United States proclaims it as a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Actual certification is published immediately in the Federal Register and eventually in the United States Statutes-at-Large.
State legislatures often call upon Congress to propose constitutional amendments. While these calls may bring some political pressure to bear, Congress is under no constitutional obligation to respond. The U.S. Constitution does not contain a provision requiring Congress to submit a proposed amendment upon request by some requisite number of states.
(I'm not sure if this is right I searched it up)
Explanation:
The Ancient Mayans developed the science of astronomy, calendar systems, and hieroglyphic writing. They were also known for creating elaborate ceremonial architecture, such as pyramids, temples, palaces, and observatories.
Answer:
In my opinion, I would be for the U.S. expansion. With the expansion comes opportunities for new jobs, farming, new trading routes, and overall a chance at a new life. Although it is inaccurate to say that I would be in need of a job considering that I did not live at the same, I would assume that those in need of farm land and work would appreciate the movement. If I were a rich man living in the city during the time of expansion, I would still agree with the expansion. Because of the amount of people in search of a job in the city, the streets were crowded, work places were filled to the top, and people were desperate for work. The expansion allows for these people to move and find new work somewhere else that does not interfere with my work. However, we can not overlook the horrible things that came with this movement such as slavery, the deaths of many people, and the basic fact that it was unconstitutional. In perspective, this question could differ depending on the person. I would have been against the expansion if I were an Indian whose home was taken and whose family was being killed by the travelers.
Explanation:
i dont know if this is good i just wrote something do what you will with it
