Hemp help help help history

answer; i believe its (jade); good luck

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.  

`stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar current or future case. stare decisis ensures that cases with identical facts be approached in the same way, unless overruled by the same court or a higher court such as the us supreme court. simply put, it binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions.

stare decisis is a latin term meaning "to stand by that which is decided".

to protest slavery i would think it would be a