Colonists in disguise boarded ships in Boston Harbor and dumped a shipment of tea in the water and the statement describes the events of the Boston Tea Party in 1773. Hence, Option B is the correct statement.
<h3>What was the Boston Tea Party and why turned into it?</h3>
A political protest that took place on December 16, 1773, at Griffin's Wharf in Boston, Massachusetts turned the Boston Tea Party into a disaster.
American colonists were irritated at Britain for imposing “taxation without representation, and” dumped 342 chests of tea, imported via way of means of the British East India Company into the harbor.
Hence, Colonists in disguise boarded ships in Boston Harbor and dumped a shipment of tea in the water and the statement describes the events of the Boston Tea Party in 1773. Option B is the correct statement.
Learn more about Boston Tea Party:
brainly.com/question/564952
#SPJ1
The result would be the destruction of the empire and civilization as they knew back then.
The supreme court is the one who benefits from court appeal
How? The supreme court will review the case and will see if it reasonable or not. Typically they would consider the case but most of the time they do decline.
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/appeals
Hope this helps if your confused.
He inherited the principality of Moscow
Answer:
O. Periodic appointments would destroy a judge's independence.
Explanation:
Alexander Hamilton wrote in his "Federalist Papers No. 78" how the independence of judges is important for the security of everyone. Stating that <em>"the general liberty of the people can never be endangered .... so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive"</em>. He further went to demand that <em>"independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals"</em>. He believes that independence of the judiciary from either the legislative or executive is a much needed act, for it will ensure the right and correct implementation of judgement. He proposed that <em>"complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution"</em>.
Moreover, judges' permanent appointment will ensure the rightful passing of judgement which can be flawed if the judges are appointed periodically. For no two persons are the same, so this may lead to differences in opinions which will lead to the former judgement being recanted by the next person appointed. Thus, he opines that <em>"periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence"</em>.
Thus, the correct answer is the third option.
