Answer:
C. The Twelve Tables and the Biography of Julius Caesar
Explanation:
In the beginning of the republic, Roman law was held in the psyches and recollections of Rome's judges and justices. Such a framework was prime for maltreatment. A judge could overlook or even change laws spontaneously, and there was no real way to address him. What's more, since officers were blue-bloods (or patricians, as the Romans called them), the average citizens, or plebs, had little any desire for discovering equity in such a framework.
The plebs challenged this equity framework for a long time, until finally, in 450 BCE, Roman law was systematized and recorded in the well known Twelve Tables of Rome. This composed law ensured that all, high just as low, were liable to the laws of Rome.
As the years passed by and the republic developed and turned out to be increasingly comprehensive, the Roman lawful framework was transformed to oblige these changes. The decisions of judges started to be utilized as a point of reference for future cases, as did the declarations of praetors. At the same time, philosophical thoughts from Stoicism found their way into Roman law.
These changes did not stop with the passing of the republic and the ascent of the Principate. Roman sovereigns, attempting to manage the new difficulties of the domain, would regularly choose magnificent legal advisers to refine and translate the law. From Gaius to Ulpian to Paulus, these legal scholars set up the philosophical underpinnings of law, making a way of thinking of equity that suffers right up 'til today.
"After the Tea Act, the American colonists became more active in their anti-British protests and continued to boycott any tea that arrived from the British. They resolved to prevent any tea from entering their harbors or being sold, and sent the shipments back to England."
Answer:
B
Explanation:
Hindus believe that they live multiple lives, reincarnating into a higher caste if they did good in their last life, until they achieve perfection and reach Nirvana
hope this helps :)
Answer:
The answer is B.
Hope this helps!
a.The Constitution protected popular sovereighty.
b.Enslaved African Americans had the rights of citizens.
c.the Constitution protected slavery.
d.Enslaved African Americans could sue for freedom.
Enslaved African Americans had the rights of citizens summarizes the message in the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision. Thus, option B is correct.
The topmost level of the court in a United state government system is known as a state supreme court. The decision made by the supreme court is regarded as conclusive and enforceable on issues of state legislation.
The ruling that was in respect to Dred Scott was made by the Supreme Court that he was, an enslaved man, who was not entitled to freedom because he had resided in a democratic state and territory.
In effect, the ruling stated that Scott wasn't an American and therefore could not file a lawsuit in a federal court since he is someone's property. Therefore, option B is the correct option.
Learn more about Supreme Court, here:
#SPJ6
c. the Soviet occupation of Berlin
b. a Chinese invasion of Taiwan
d. Soviet aggression in the Middle east
B. John F. Kennedy
C. Dwight
d. Eisenhower
D. Richard M. Nixon
What is the domino theory?
A. a political theory that was developed during the Cold War that stated if one nation fell to communism surrounding nations would likely fall to communism as well
B. a military theory that was developed during World War II that stated if you eliminate one nation in an alliance that others will ...