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
GuDViN [60]
3 years ago
7

How many years after the decline of the Harappa civilization was India first United

History
1 answer:
hichkok12 [17]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

800 years

Explanation:

i thingk iam correct

You might be interested in
What was John C. Calhoun's view on nullification?
DochEvi [55]
The correct option is this: INDIVIDUAL STATES COULD NULLIFY FEDERAL LAWS THAT DO NOT BENEFIT THEM. 
Nullification crisis occurred in USA between 1832 and 1833, during the time that Andrew Jackson was occupying the office of the president. The crisis was between the federal government and the South Carolina government. The crisis began when the south Carolina government declared that the federal tariff of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and void within the state of south Carolina. John C. Calhoun, who was the vice president during this period and who came from south Carolina was of the view that, the federal government existed at the will of the state and therefore the state can declare unconstitutional and void any federal law that is detrimental to the health of the state. <span />
8 0
3 years ago
What long term impact did the invention of the seed drill have on great britain
Vlad1618 [11]

Answer:

It raised productivity. The horse drawn seed drill, invented by Jethro Till ( the agricultural pioneer not the 1970s rock band!) was central to the Agricultural Revolution, which preceded the Industrial Revolution in England. The Agricultural Revolution allowed farmers to move from basically a subsistence economy to producing enough food to feed the towns and cities housed the industrial workers.

Explanation:

3 0
4 years ago
Help!!
Lena [83]

Answer:

On May 28, 1861, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney directly challenged President Abraham Lincoln’s wartime suspension of the great writ of habeas corpus, in a national constitutional showdown.

roger_Brooke_Taney

Lincon and Taney had not been on good terms prior to Taney’s decision on the habeas question in Ex Parte Merryman, which he issued while acting as a circuit judge. Taney had also written the majority opinion in the controversial Dred Scott case in 1857, a decision than Lincoln publicly criticized in his famous debates with Stephen Douglas. Lincoln also made the Dred Scott decision a central theme of his 1860 presidential campaign.

As Chief Justice, Taney was forced to issue the presidential oath to Lincoln in March 1861, and to listen to Lincoln’s inaugural address, where he again criticized Taney and the Dred Scott decision, but not directly by name.

“The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal,” Lincoln said.

About three months later, Taney had his chance to address Lincoln’s vision of executive power in Ex Parte Merryman.

Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution states that “the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The Great Writ’s origins go back to the signing of the Magna Carta in England in 1215 and the writ compels the government to show cause to a judge for the arrest or detention of a person.

After the start of the Civil War, President Lincoln ordered General Winfield Scott to suspend habeas corpus near railroad lines that connected Philadelphia to Washington, amid fears of a rebellion in Maryland that would endanger Washington.

On May 25, 1861, federal troops arrested a Maryland planter, John Merryman, on suspicion that he was involved in a conspiracy as part of an armed secessionist group. Merryman was detained at Fort McHenry without a warrant. Merryman’s attorney petitioned the U.S. Circuit Court for Maryland, which Taney oversaw, for his client’s release.

On May 26, Taney issued a writ of habeas corpus and ordered General George Cadwalader, Fort McHenry’s commander, to appear in the circuit courtroom along with Merryman and to explain his reasons for detaining Merryman.

Cadwalader didn’t comply with the writ and instead sent a letter back to Taney on May 27 explaining that Lincoln had authorized military officers to suspend the writ when they felt there were public safety concerns. Taney then tried to notify Cadwalader that he was in contempt of court, but soldiers at Fort McHenry refused the notice.

On May 28, Taney issued an oral opinion, which was followed by a written opinion a few days later. He stated that the Constitution clearly intended for Congress, and not the President, to have to power to suspend the writ during emergencies.

“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department,” Taney argued. “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power,” Taney concluded.

However, Taney noted that he didn’t have the physical power to enforce the writ in this case because of the nature of the conflict at hand. “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome,” he said. But Taney did order that a copy of his opinion be sent directly to President Lincoln.

Lincoln didn’t respond directly or immediately to the Ex Parte Merryman decision. Instead, he waited until a July 4th address to confront Taney at a special session of Congress.

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
What was the responsibility of the tribal assembly in the early roman republic?
Genrish500 [490]
<span>The Tribal Assembly in the early Roman Republic was the democratic assembly of Roman citizens that dealt with the judicial, executive, and legislative matters.
They basically operate like our modern Government. The tribal assembly operates all legal conflict matters, the execution of regulations, and the creation of law that should be imposed in the nation.</span>
8 0
4 years ago
What did equality mean in 1776
kolezko [41]
There's your answer I hope that helps u

8 0
4 years ago
Other questions:
  • What’s the difference between Immigration and Indentured ser ente?
    11·1 answer
  • Which description of the impeachment process as defined by the U.S. Constitution is correct?
    5·2 answers
  • Why did the Confederacy want to control Fort Sumter?
    6·2 answers
  • How did John Winthrop change the government of Massachusetts
    11·2 answers
  • What was the Catholic Church's response to Martin Luther's call to establish a reformed German church?
    10·1 answer
  • Attached in the picture
    13·2 answers
  • 11. Which of the following state
    13·1 answer
  • Both parties agreed to ratify the Constitution once the Federalist consented to
    11·1 answer
  • What country is completely surrounded by South Africa?​
    6·2 answers
  • Which best explains why many African Americans had not registered to vote by the 1960s?
    5·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!