Answer:
Checks and Balances. This is a way for the Branches of government to not overpower each other.
Explanation:
Answer:
no hehejsanfkjsdnkjsandjnfkdjafxfgdfdffg
Explanation:
The British restriction of trade could be considered a violation of natural rights because 'Restrictions interfered with individuals' pursuit of economic self-interest'.
They are governed constitutionally as on single entity, with one constitutionally created legislature
The nationalist inclinations of the Marshall Court were apparent in a series of decisions on the legal status of "Indian tribes" within the United States.
<h3>What is the Marshall trilogy?</h3>
Three Supreme Court rulings from the early nineteenth century, together known as the Marshall Trilogy, upheld the political and legal status of Indian tribes. The key features are-
- According to Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), private individuals were not permitted to buy land from Native Americans.
- According to Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Cherokee people were reliant on the United States and had a guardian-like relationship with them.
- The connection between tribes, state, and federal governments was outlined in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), which declared that the federal government was the only entity with the ability to deal with Indian nations.
The nationalist inclinations of the Marshall Court are shown by-
- The Marshall Court helped define the reach of the federal judiciary during the early years of the American Republic, a period known as Judicial Nationalism.
- Marshall's views on nationalism, the broad interpretation of the Constitution, property rights, and the primacy of the federal government over the idea of "states' rights" bolstered the role of the federal government and, in particular, the appellate function of the high court.
Learn more about the Marshall court, here brainly.com/question/5347746
#SPJ4
