What was the combined effect of the indian removal act and the trail of tears? a.) most native americans from the southeast were forced to give up their lands. b.)many native americans gave up their traditional customs. c.) the seminole wars broke out between colonists and native americans in the southeast. d.) native americans who adopted european ways of life were moved to new settlements east of the mississippi.

The combined effect of the Indian Removal Act and the Trial of Tears was:

A.) Most Native Americans from the Southeast were forced to give up their lands.

Explanation:

To understand this, we need to analyze the situation and options. The Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears were events in which the Native Americans that lived in east Mississippi to the west of the river. Because they found gold and there was a fight of interests. Therefore, the native Americans took the conflict to congress and the congress failed in their favor. However, they were escorted to leave their lands eventually. more than 30% of them died due to this situation and it occurred east Mississippi river. So a) option is the correct answer.  The rest are weak or don't have enough arguments.

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