How did john calhoun's doctrine of nullification describe power between the state and national goverments?
a)the federal government could invalidate state laws it believed were unconstitutional.
b) the constitution, as a creation of the people, applied in all cases to all state
c) federal troops were allowed to enforce federal laws within state borders
d) state courts could invalidate federal laws they considered unconstitutional

nativists tried to get rid of the immigrants as they thought they were going to ruin the u.s.  

cultural achievements of the 1920's 2010  

1. cultural achievements and african american achievements in the 1920’s  

2. art and literature charles lindberg flew from ny to paris, france. became national hero; first transatlantic flight.  

3. greenwich village (new york) and the south side (chicago)  many artists, writers, and intellectuals flocked to these areas to share ideas  people lead bohemian, or artistic and unconventional, lifestyles

b is the answer i am assuming

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is