This is a opinion based answer but there is 3 main answers to this question one is yes they should be able to take their rights away because us having the freedom to do anything can be dangerous for the government second is no they shouldn’t just because we are going into war doesn’t give them the rights to take our freedoms away because it could cause more problems within the way and the third is no they shouldn’t be able too unless their given a valid reason to take their right and then give an example
The statement about the slave Anthony Burns that is not true would be "<span>a. He was able to buy his freedom from his master," since in fact it was sympathetic Bostonians who bought his freedom. </span>
He got banned from the church in 1521, including he translated the Bible Into German.
Hope this Helped!
Sorry for the delay, Enjoy your day!
Answer:LOUISIANA PURCHASE. ... In 1803 he agreed to sell the Louisiana Territory (approximately 827,000 square miles) to the United States for a price of $15 million. The United States doubled its territorial size and extended public lands westward into the Missouri River and the Rocky Mountains.
Explanation:
Answer:
Marbury: Was appointed as a federal judge - Supported the Judiciary Act of 1789 - Argued for original jurisdiction.
-Madison: Refused to honor an appointment.Explanation:
Marbury v. Madison was a judicial case resolved by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1803. It arose as a result of a political dispute following the presidential elections of 1800, in which Thomas Jefferson, who was a Democratic Republican, defeated then-President John Adams, who was a federalist. In the last days of the outgoing government of Adams, the Congress, dominated by the federalists, established a series of judicial positions, among them 42 justices the of peace for the District of Columbia. The Senate confirmed the appointments, the president signed them and the Secretary of State was in charge of sealing and delivering the appointment documents. In the last-minute hustle and bustle, the outgoing secretary of state did not deliver the minutes of appointment to four justices of the peace, including William Marbury.
The new secretary of state under President Jefferson, James Madison, refused to deliver the minutes of appointment as the new government was irritated by the maneuver of the federalists of trying to secure control of the judiciary with the appointment of members of their party just before ceasing in government. However, Marbury appealed to the Supreme Court to order Madison to deliver his record.
If the Court ruled in favor of Marbury, Madison could still refuse to deliver the record and the Supreme Court would have no way to enforce the order. If the Court ruled against Marbury, it risked submitting the judiciary to Jefferson's supporters by allowing them to deny Marbury the position he could legally claim. Chief Justice John Marshall resolved this dilemma by deciding that the Supreme Court was not empowered to settle this case. Marshall ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, which granted the Court these powers, was unconstitutional because it extended the original jurisdiction of the Court to the jurisdiction defined by the Constitution itself. Having decided not to intervene in this particular case, the Supreme Court secured its position as final arbiter of the law.
