Ok i found this on the internet: "Of the House's twenty-two charges, eleven were sustained, including "illegal collection of campaign funds, padding the public payroll, suspension of habeas corpus, excessive use of the pardon power, and general incompetence." On November 19, 1923, Walton was convicted and removed from office."
Please report me i did not come up with this i got it from the internet!
People used to study the brain by drilling and cutting it open.
In korematsu vs united States the federal exclusion order forced japanese Americans into relocation camps was deemed constitutional because it was issued under
The correct answer is: because it was issued under special circumstances during wartime.
Korematsu v. United States ( 1944 ) was a landmark Supreme Court decision concerning the execution of Executive Order 9066. This order ordered Japanese Americans into interment camps due to suspicions of espionage and their engagement against the United States.
The Court ruled that the need to protect the country against espionage outweighed the rights of Americans of Japanese descent, such as Fred Korematsu.
According to the Justices, Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of his race but because the United States was at was with the Japanese Empire and the order was a way to protect America.
wartime conditions is your answer my good sir
What were the details of the Great Compromise?
I believe it was when small and large States decided to have an upper and Lower house. the lower house, house of rep, was to have the number of rep. be based on population. while the upper house, the senate, was made to give all states an equal representation in the government. this being based on statehood ,which earned two senators, and did not take population into account into choosing the number of senators.
Read the following excerpt from a presidential proclamation issued in 1865 and answer the question below.I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, . . . hereby grant and assure to all white persons who have, directly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, a full pardon, but upon the condition, nevertheless, that every such person will . . . take and subscribe the following oath . . .
Source: Library of Congress
Why did Radical Republicans disagree with this proclamation?
Radical Republicans disagreed with this Presidential Proclamation because they thought that President Johnson is being too merciful towards the Southerners.
On May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson declared a Presidential Proclamation under which, with the purpose not to punish Southerners and quickly reunite the States, he granted political rights to those who swore their faithfulness towards the States.
In the viewpoint of Radical Republicans, this Presidential Proclamation was indulgent towards the Southerners who started the war. According to these Radical Republicans, these Southerners needed to be punished harshly.
Therefore, the reason why Radical Republicans disagreed with this proclamation was because they considered that President Johnson was being too merciful towards the Southerners.
The Radical Republicans disagreed with this proclamation because they believed it was too lenient towards the former Confederates and did not address the issues of civil rights for freed slaves and land redistribution. They also had concerns about President Johnson's commitment to enforcing the conditions of the proclamation.
The Radical Republicans disagreed with this proclamation because they believed that it was too lenient towards the former Confederate states and did not do enough to punish the individuals responsible for the rebellion. They wanted more stringent conditions for receiving pardon, including the protection of civil rights for freed slaves and the redistribution of land to them.
The proclamation also clashed with the Radical Republicans' vision of Reconstruction, which involved a more radical and transformative process of rebuilding the South. They believed that the proclamation undermined their goals and would impede progress towards equal rights and opportunities for all citizens.
The Radical Republicans also had concerns about President Johnson's intentions and his willingness to ensure the proper execution of the proclamation. They feared that he would not enforce the conditions or take action against those who violated them, which would effectively undermine the punishment and accountability they sought.
Learn more about Radical Republicans and the presidential proclamation of 1865 here:
Winning at any cost should never be the ultimate goal when competing in sports. What are some other benefits competition provides?
Competition in sports provides benefits beyond winning, including personal growth, teamwork, time management, and valuable life lessons.
While winning is often seen as the ultimate goal in sports, competition provides several other benefits.
Competition fosters personal growth by challenging individuals to push their limits and improve their skills.
It promotes teamwork and camaraderie among teammates as they work together towards a common goal. Most sports require the cooperative efforts of multiple individuals to achieve a shared objective
Sports engage individuals in practices, games, and competitions - all of which require time management.
Athletes must balance their sports responsibilities with their academic and personal lives.
Competition teaches valuable life lessons such as perseverance, sportsmanship, and resilience and pushes athletes to their limits. They learn to embrace defeat, improve, and bounce back stronger when faced with challenges.
Learn more about Benefits of competition in sports here:
Instead of focusing on the amount of wins and losses a team has, it is best to focus on the quality of play the team had. It is better to watch for improvement rather than counting the wins and losses. Finally, challenging oneself is more important than tallying wins and losses.