Answer:
The electoral college is working the way it is supposed to.
Explanation:
The president of the United States is the President of all the lands owned by the US, not the president of only the major cities. The Electoral College was created to balance out the population with the land. For example, if we take into account and allow the Democrats to get what they want (i.e., popular vote), it will lead to large segments of the population being cut off from the political realm. With the popular vote only, candidates will only reach out to large population areas, as they have the higher chances of receiving the message and to vote for them. In the end, the electoral college is in place to ensure that all groups of the US, no matter where they live, are reached out too. The Popular vote is not the way to go, and if the Democrats want to get rid of the Electoral College, they must put in a system that is better than it. Remember, the Electoral College, while it does has it's faults, solves a gruesome problem of keeping the president from being the president of the major cities, to being the president of the land.
~
Answer:
The United States Constitution is silent on the subject of political parties. The Founding Fathers did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan.
They would need congress to approve the new justices that’s the president wants to add. Also packing the courts isn’t good bc it makes decisions harder to make and the process longer. Ask many if you have any further questions! Also mark brainlyest if you found this helpful
Answer: C. The Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott was not entitled to the rights of citizenship, which inflamed sectional tensions that eventually led to the outbreak of the Civil War.
Details:
Dred Scott was a slave who had been owned by a Missouri man named John Emerson. Emerson's service in the US military caused him to live for a time in Illinois (which was a free state) and Wisconsin (which was a free territory. Later, back in Missouri, after John Emerson died, Scott tried to purchase his freedom from Emerson's widow, who refused. With lawyers' help, he then filed suit to gain his freedom on the grounds that he had lived in a free state and free territory.
In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), commonly referred to simply as "The Dred Scott case," the Supreme Court, by a 7 to 2 margin, issued its ruling that Scott was not entitled to his freedom just because he had lived at some times in free territory. The Court also ruled that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States, and therefore did not have the legal standing to file such a lawsuit. The Court further stated that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 had been an overreach of federal government power -- that any states or territories were free to make their own decisions regarding slavery.
The Dred Scott decision was a controversial event which played into the tensions that by 1861 erupted into the Civil War in the United States.
Read more on Brainly.com - brainly.com/question/10791169#readmore
