Perhaps the largest argument was that the Constitution did not grant enough power to the individual states. The Constitutional Convention was meant to REVISE the Articles of Confederation, not transfer power to the federal government. Another major complaint was that the Constitution did not initially contain the basic rights of normal citizens (the Bill of Rights). This was later added in order to convince the anti-federalists to ratify the Constitution.
Answer
Appeal to a higher federal court.
Explanation
The trial process. Listen. At the trial, the accused may be tried by judge alone or by judge and jury. The purpose of the trial is to present all relevant admissible evidence to the court. The jury will decide the guilt or innocence of the accused person. In the trial courts, the lawyers present evidence and legal arguments to persuade the jury in a jury trial or the judge in a bench trial. After the party loses in the trial court or it is not contented with the ruling one can appeal to the Us supreme court. The appellant or the party who files an appeal must show that the trial court made a legal error that affected the decision in the case.The appellant prepares a written document, or brief, discussing the legal arguments. In this process, appellants cite previous court cases that support their point of view.
Trauma and disruptions
There were series of revolutions in China since 1911. the republic was formed that year following a fierce <span>Xinhai Revolution, that brought to an end several centuries of imperial rule in the country. Down the decades civil wars,and revolutions rocked the republic until 1949 when Mao Zedong won over Jeshi and took control of a new communist republic.</span>
<span />
In a historic ruling handed down on June 27, 2013, the Supreme Court declared that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and that the federal government cannot discriminate against married lesbian and homosexual couples when deciding federal benefits and protections.
<h3>What is the United States v. Windsor case?</h3>
A significant same-sex marriage civil rights case heard by the US Supreme Court was Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013). The Defense of Marriage Act's (DOMA) Section 3 was found to be in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it forbade the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions.
Asserting that Windsor compensated her for her harm in the lower court and that there was no debate because the Government-backed her claim, Justice Scalia dissented in concurrence with Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts.
Learn more about the United States v. Windsor case here:
brainly.com/question/19882758
#SPJ1
