Plsss help no links pls and answer in at least two sentences. When the US Supreme Court interprets the US Constitution is it sometimes, in effect, making new laws? Is such “activism” on the part of the Supreme Court part of its job?

- "the four new england colonies of colonial america included colonies of new hampshire, massachusetts bay colony, rhode island and connecticut."

< 3

states

explanation:

as the old saying goes, all politics are local. state and federal governments affect our daily lives in numerous ways. yet, in our federal system, there is supposed to be a balance between federal and state power. as james madison envisioned it in federalist no. 51, “the power surrendered by the people” would be “divided between two distinct governments,” creating a balance of power that would enable the “different governments [to] control each other.”

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.  

the answer to your question is a because laws act as guidelines as to what is accepted in society. without it there would be conflicts between social groups and communities. it serves as a norm of conduct for citizens.