Answer:
Marbury: Was appointed as a federal judge - Supported the Judiciary Act of 1789 - Argued for original jurisdiction.
-Madison: Refused to honor an appointment.Explanation:
Marbury v. Madison was a judicial case resolved by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1803. It arose as a result of a political dispute following the presidential elections of 1800, in which Thomas Jefferson, who was a Democratic Republican, defeated then-President John Adams, who was a federalist. In the last days of the outgoing government of Adams, the Congress, dominated by the federalists, established a series of judicial positions, among them 42 justices the of peace for the District of Columbia. The Senate confirmed the appointments, the president signed them and the Secretary of State was in charge of sealing and delivering the appointment documents. In the last-minute hustle and bustle, the outgoing secretary of state did not deliver the minutes of appointment to four justices of the peace, including William Marbury.
The new secretary of state under President Jefferson, James Madison, refused to deliver the minutes of appointment as the new government was irritated by the maneuver of the federalists of trying to secure control of the judiciary with the appointment of members of their party just before ceasing in government. However, Marbury appealed to the Supreme Court to order Madison to deliver his record.
If the Court ruled in favor of Marbury, Madison could still refuse to deliver the record and the Supreme Court would have no way to enforce the order. If the Court ruled against Marbury, it risked submitting the judiciary to Jefferson's supporters by allowing them to deny Marbury the position he could legally claim. Chief Justice John Marshall resolved this dilemma by deciding that the Supreme Court was not empowered to settle this case. Marshall ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, which granted the Court these powers, was unconstitutional because it extended the original jurisdiction of the Court to the jurisdiction defined by the Constitution itself. Having decided not to intervene in this particular case, the Supreme Court secured its position as final arbiter of the law.
Answer:
the civil rights movement was organized effort of black Americans
The goal of England's mercantilist policy was to make the country richer.
In those days, people believed that mercantilism was the best way to do this. In the 1600s and 1700s (and even into the 1800s) most people believed in mercantilism.
Hope this helps! Please mark me brainliest!
Answer:
Best describe as propaganda because it is biased
Answer:
The Republican Party struggled in the South because most Southerners resented Reconstruction.
Explanation:
Reconstruction was a period after the end of the Civil War in which the Republican federal government tried to transform Southern states from slave economies to states where the former slaves were now free citizens with civil rights. In this context, radical Republicans wanted to enact laws, institutions and governing powers that guaranteed such rights for all Americans, while Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson leaned toward a more moderate line to try to stabilize the Union as quickly as possible.
During this time, three amendments were made to the Constitution, known as Reconstruction Amendments. These abolished slavery and forced labor, gave equal protection to the law, and prohibited discrimination on grounds of race, color, or past slave condition. Congress also passed the first Civil Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which banned discrimination in public transportation, public places and in juries. But after about a decade of rapid change, conservative Democratic forces struck back many of them, and the Reconstruction period ended in 1877, when the last federal troops were withdrawn from the Southern states. This was due to the lack of support from the southern Democrat citizens to the Republican Party, which was the sector that promoted the Reconstruction process.
