Mculloch refused to pay taxes
Maryland passed a law taxing federal banks
Explanation:
Mculloch Vs Maryland was the a case before the Supreme court in 1819 and the court decided in favor of Mculloch. The court took a decision on whether the Congress had the power to create national banks and whether the state of Maryland interfered in the powers of Congress by deciding to tax the banks.
before 1819 differences of opinion existed between the members of the Congress on whether federal governments should be allowed to create and run a national Bank. Despite oppositions,National Bank started working in the US and the state of Maryland was dissatisfied. They imposed taxes on the Baltimore branch of the Bank of united States and the bank's cashier James W Mculloch refused to pay the taxes and the conflict was resolved by the Supreme court decision that came in favor of Mculloch in 1819.
D. He discovered an important mathematical formula (pythagorean theorem, discovering the area of a right angled triangle using its side lengths.)
Answer:
land- air /use- building new structures vertically in the air
sand /use- building new islands at sea
labor- construction workers /use- building the burj khalifa
human capitol- engineering skill /use- building a ski slope in the desert
physical capitol- machinery /use- cranes used for construction
entrepreneurship- leader's action to develop the city /use- making Dubai into a business and entertainment center for the Middle East
Explanation:
Answer:
C
Explanation:
First of all he was Catholic and remained so for the rest of his life after the reformation began.
He was not against reformation. That was pretty odd for someone Catholic at that time. So C is likely the answer you want. This is almost a direct quote on what he really believed.
A: in his mind was likely possible. He wanted to reform the clerics peacefully.
Answer:
Because rural districts had fewer people, representation was unevenly distributed; thus, Baker was denied equal protection under the law.
Explanation:
The Baker v. Carr (1962) was a case of redistricting in which the state of Tennessee argued that the makeup of legislative districts constituted a nonjusticiable political question.
However, the Supreme Court declared that "redistricting did not qualify as a political question."
Because rural districts had fewer people, representation was unevenly distributed; thus, Baker was denied equal protection under the law.
