Answer: idk
Explanation:
im tired and dont feel like answering ur question
<span>noun1.an act or instance of nullifying.2.the state of being nullified.3.(often initial capital letter) the failure or refusal of a U.S. state to aid in enforcement of federal laws within its limits, especially on Constitutional grounds.</span>
Answer:
Explanation:
They both are right especially during the time of their presidency. Thomas Jefferson believed that a strong federal government proved itself to be a necessity although he probably didn't like the idea at all. After all the founding fathers tried the Articles of Confederation (ratified 1781) and found out that it didn't really work.
Eight years later, they wrote the constitution that we currently live under. The federal government was given a lot more power which it needed. That doesn't mean it was fully embraced. Just that it was the next step. If anything, for all Jefferson's idealism, he was a pragmatist. If it worked, do it and be content.
====================
Lincoln saw the whole situation quite differently. The Civil War began with the underlying cause of state's rights. Later on (1863), Lincoln turned to the question of slavery. There was a hole even in the 1789 Constitution and that hole came back to haunt everyone. The question was individual rights. Slaves. The south could not easily survive without slave labor and because slaves were expensive, they were more or less humanely treated. After the Civil War, their condition was a nightmare. Lincoln address the entire question of what was missing in the constitution although he did not bring any amendments to correct what he knew had to be corrected. He may have done so if he was not murdered. As it was it was left to Johnson to bring in the 13th amendment, which abolished slavery.
Answer:
c
the answer youre looking for
Hello. The answer to your question is B
hope this helps :)
