Yes, Chief Justice Marshall supported states' rights, but only as granted in the Constitution (this means your test answer should probably be "no,"). The Marshall Court ruled some cases in favor of the states, particular when the federal question involved enforcing the Bill of Rights against the states, which was only intended to apply to the federal government at that time.
For the most part, Marshall, a member of the Federalist party, believed in strengthening the central government and subordinating individual states' powers to the United States when conflicts arose. Marshall's rulings on the relationship between the two entities appear well grounded in contemporary constitutional theory (much of which was being interpreted for the first time). The state and federal government shared power, but when state statutes and policies were in conflict with the the US Constitution, the Constitution, Federal Laws, and negotiated treaties superseded state sovereignty, per the Supremacy Clause in Article VI.
Many of the cases during the Marshall era involved the separation of powers between branches and other various states and territories, problems that naturally arose in the early years of the United States.
Federalists, like Alexander Hamilton wanted to support England, wanted a strong powerful government, a national bank and a loose interpretation of the Coast. On the other hand, Democratic-Republicans disagreed. They wanted to support France, wanted a small federal government, no national bank and a strict interpretation of the Coast.
Essentially, Hamilton believed in a loose interpretation of the Constitution and used a loose interpretation to support a strong Federal Government and Jefferson believed in a strict interpretation, and was in favor of a not so strong Federal Government with more power and rights being given to the States. The stem of much of their disagreement was their interpretations of the Elastic, or Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution (Article 1 Sec. 8 Clause 18).
Federalists, like Alexander Hamilton wanted to support England, wanted a strong powerful government, a national bank and a loose interpretation of the Coast. On the other hand, Democratic-Republicans disagreed. They wanted to support France, wanted a small federal government, no national bank and a strict interpretation of the Coast.
Federalists wanted to support England and also wanted a strong and powerful government, a national bank, and a loose interpretation of the Coast. The Democratic-Republicans wanted to support France and also wanted a small federal government, no national bank, and a strict interpretation of the Coast.
This is up to the interpretation of the court, but if the mother is on Welfare, than yes. It benefits the states to order retroactive support in getting 15% in matching federal funds, less than 25% of which is spent on child support enforcement. see links
By giving federal grant
A rigid , relatively slender, upright support, composed of relatively few pieces.
There is no scientific theory of creation.
Yes. Gavin Marshall supports the legalization of same-sex marriage in Australia.
Andrew Jackson did not support the concept of a strong centralized federal government. He favored a limited government with more power given to the states. Jackson also opposed the idea of a national bank, believing it benefited the wealthy at the expense of the common people.
no according to Judge David Grey Ross, Commissioner of the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement
Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement