Answer:
I’m not sure can you be more specific
Explanation:
Answer:
They brought the outside and different economic political options to the people.
Explanation:
The Fifth Amendment<span> says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without </span>due process<span> of law." The Fourteenth </span>Amendment<span>, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the </span>Due Process Clause<span>, to describe a legal obligation of all states.</span>
Answer:
From one perspective, the Kansas issue in 1854 can be said to have helped Abraham Lincoln win the US presidency in 1860. Lincoln respected the US Supreme Courts' decision concerning the legality of slavery, but personally, he hated slavery. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, gave settlers in those territories the right to vote on slavery in their territories before they applied for statehood. This act repealed Missouri compromise 1820 with the popular sovereignty portion of the bill was written into the proposal. The bill was to allow voters to decide if slavery should be in the following states the voters lived. Lincoln did not want slavery to expand westward, nor did most Americans. The violence between pro and antislavery bodies in Kansas was the result of the Act. Said Act caused violence and bloodshed in Kansas. Pro-slavery warranted many massacres an example would be the (you can add this but it may not be relevant or timestamp/frame correct: Lawrence Massacre in 1863 on August 21) Pottawatomie Massacre in 1856 the night of May 24 to early morning May 25. There were five casualties. There were several other pro-slavery If Congress had never allowed Kansas to vote on slavery, many lives wouldn't have been lost and bloodshed would've been avoided. With that said, Lincoln's position against slavery in the West resonated with voters in 1860.
Answer: The Declaration was intended for a wide audience and is written in a more powerful, persuasive style. The Bill of Rights was intended as a legal document while the Declaration carried no legal significance. The Bill of Rights was intended for delegates and lawmakers and is written in a more precise, technical style.
The Bill of Rights was intended as a legal document while the Declaration carried no legal significance.
The Declaration of Independence did not carry any legal significance because it was a mere statement of facts and ideas about America. In this case, nobody could stop America from becoming a country and they needed no approval.
As far as the Bill of Rights, this is a legal document because it was passed by the members of Constitutional Convention who worked together to develop this set of rights. These rights would ensure protection against government tyranny.