The correct answer choice would be:
C. expresses the justification for a dissenting opinion of one or more judges.
:)
True
New Federalism is a political philosophy of devolution that
involves the transfer of certain powers from the United States federal
government back to the states. It was announced in 1969 by Nixon to turn over
the control of some federal programs to state and local governments and
institute block grants, revenue sharing,
Basic argument of the Federalists for ratification <span>of the constitution is that it would give the central government more powers which was essential for the survival of the United States. A stronger central government would improve the economy, foreign relations, and would give the government more power to levy taxes and execute laws, as well as the power to create a strong military without permission from the states.
Arguments against the ratification would be used by ANTI-Federalists, NOT Federalists.
Those arguments against ratification were that the central government would get too powerful and strip the average citizens of their rights. Other problems that were brought forth were the states' representation in the government. Eventually, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution and the anti-Federalists were less apposed to it.
</span><span>
</span>
Answer:
Mark as brainliest
Explanation:
symbolic presence in international legal accounts of the 19th century, but for historians of the era its importance has often been doubted. This article seeks to re-interpret the place of the Berlin General Act in late 19th-century history, suggesting that the divergence of views has arisen largely as a consequence of an inattentiveness to the place of systemic logics in legal regimes of this kind.
Issue Section:
Articles
INTRODUCTION
The Berlin West Africa Conference of 1884-1885 has assumed a canonical place in historical accounts of late 19th-century imperialism 1 and this is no less true of the accounts provided by legal scholars seeking to trace the colonial origins of contemporary international law. 2 The overt purpose of the Conference was to ‘manage’ the ongoing process of colonisation in Africa (the ‘Scramble’ as it was dubbed by a Times columnist) so as to avoid the outbreak of armed conflict between rival colonial powers. Its outcome was the conclusion of a General Act 3 ratified by all major colonial powers including the US. 4 Among other things, the General Act set out the conditions under which territory might be acquired on the coast of Africa; it internationalised two rivers (the Congo and the Niger); it orchestrated a new campaign to abolish the overland trade in slaves; and it declared as ‘neutral’ a vast swathe of Central Africa delimited as the ‘conventional basin of the Congo’. A side event was the recognition given to King Leopold’s fledgling Congo Free State that had somewhat mysteriously emerged out of the scientific and philanthropic activities of the Association internationale du Congo . 5
If for lawyers and historians the facts of the Conference are taken as a common starting point, this has not prevented widely divergent interpretations of its significance from emerging. On one side, one may find an array of international lawyers, from John Westlake 6 in the 19th century to Tony Anghie 7 in the 21 st century, affirming the importance of the Conference and its General Act for having created a legal and political framework for the subsequent partition of Africa. 8 For Anghie, Berlin ‘transformed Africa into a conceptual terra nullius ’, silencing native resistance through the subordination of their claims to sovereignty, and providing, in the process, an effective ideology of colonial rule. It was a conference, he argues, ‘which determined in important ways the future of the continent and which continues to have a profound influence on the politics of contemporary Africa’. 9
