Why did some americans feel that the articles of confederation was not sufficient for the new nation

In sultani period how many provinces wew established in bengal?

Drupady [299]

Answer:

Explanation:

<em> The Sultanate of Bengal (Bengali: শাহী বাংলা, Persian: شاهی بنگاله‎ Shāhī Bangālah), also known as the Bengal Sultanate or simply Bengal (Persian: بنگاله‎ Bangālah, Bengali: বাংলা, romanized: Bangla),[2] was an empire[3][4][5] based in Bengal for much of the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries. It was the dominant power of the Ganges–Brahmaputra Delta, with a network of mint towns spread across the region. The Bengal Sultanate had a circle of vassal states, including Odisha in the southwest, Arakan in the southeast,[6] and Tripura in the east.[7] In the early 16th-century, the Bengal Sultanate reached the peak of its territorial growth with control over Kamrup and Kamata in the northeast and Jaunpur and Bihar in the west. It was reputed as a thriving trading nation and one of Asia's strongest states. Its decline began with an interregnum by the Suri Empire, followed by Mughal conquest and disintegration into petty kingdoms.</em>

8 0

3 years ago

How many slave states and free states were there in 1850?

katrin2010 [14]

15 slave and 15 free states.

7 0

3 years ago

What battle was a major turning point in the war in Europe?

sweet [91]

The battle of Stalingrad was the major turning point.

6 0

3 years ago

(NEED HELP) In this assignment, you will write a three- to four-paragraph Supreme Court opinion for

liberstina [14]

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane D. Kirstein, U .S. Attorney's Office, San Antonio, TX, Plaintiff–Appellee. Laura G. Greenberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Bradford W. Bogan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender's Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant–Appellant.

In this case, we must decide whether the district court's imposition of a condition of supervised release prohibiting the defendant from “residing or going to places where a minor or minors are known to frequent without prior approval of the probation officer” was plainly erroneous. We conclude it was not and AFFIRM.

I.

In January 1990, Michael Fields was convicted in Wisconsin state court of second degree sexual assault of a child.1 He was sentenced to five years in prison, but only served one year; the rest of his term was probated. Fields was required to register as a sex offender in Wisconsin for the rest of his life. Because of this conviction, he must also register as a sex offender in Texas. Fields has thrice been arrested and convicted for failing to register as a sex offender.2 He has also been repeatedly told by state authorities in both Wisconsin and Texas that he must register as a sex offender, instructions with which it appears he has never complied.3

Fields was arrested by the Austin Police Department for failing to register as a sex offender in April 2013. The next month, he was indicted in federal court and charged with one count of failing to register as a sex offender in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”).4 After unsuccessfully moving to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that SORNA was unconstitutional, Fields pled guilty in July 2013.

In November 2013, Fields appeared before the district court for his sentencing hearing. At that hearing, the court reviewed Fields's criminal history record, and concluded that, even discounting several convictions where it was disputed as to whether Fields committed the crime, he had “a solid criminal record since 1974.” After hearing from counsel, the court then sentenced Fields to a 27–month sentence of imprisonment, followed by ten years of supervised release. The supervision included a number of conditions, including, as relevant here, a requirement that:

The defendant shall follow all other lifestyle restrictions or treatment requirements imposed by the therapist, and continue those restrictions as they pertain to avoiding risk situations throughout the course of supervision. This includes not residing or going to places where a minor or minors are known to frequent without prior approval of the probation officer.

Fields did not object to this condition. This timely appeal follows.

II.

We normally review conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion.5 In this case, because Fields did not object to his supervised release condition while before the district court, we review for plain error.6 As the Supreme Court has made clear, plain error is a demanding standard:

6 0

3 years ago

How did different religious groups gain protection under Muslim rulers?

Rzqust [24]

Answer:

To begin, we need to first grasp the basic terminology relevant to the study of religious minorities. Religious minorities are known as dhimmīs, short for ahl al-dhimmah, or people of the dhimmah, a term that later became synonymous with the People of the Book.[4] The original meaning of al-dhimmah, however, meant protection, and it was often short for dhimmat–Allah wa-rasūlih, or the “protection of God and His Prophet.”[5] In short, the concept originally had a divine connotation, or a meaning that was directly related to the power of God. However, the concept soon morphed into a technical legal term with the progression of classical scholarship, and it consequently lost its transcendent dimension.[6] As a result, ahl al-dhimmah, or people of the dhimmah, has become a legal term and not a reference to the recipients of divine protection. It is important to discuss the etymology of the word because it demonstrates the significance of the people of the dhimmah who, at the very root of it all, are people who were to be protected on behalf of God and His Prophet ﷺ – an immense responsibility. This status is awarded to People of the Book (who according to many scholars includes Zoroastrians and others) who agree through contract to pay the jizyah, or poll-tax, in exchange for that protection.[7] In sum, the formation of the people of the dhimmah was rooted in religious minorities paying a tax that exempted them from military service. Much more nuance can be embedded within all of these terms that are sometimes highly contested among scholars, but considering the limited scope of this paper, we will move forward to address the larger picture at hand.

The power of the Muslim state was dependent on its ability to provide two precious resources to its people: security and justice.[8] Christians and Jews and other minorities were not technically citizens of the Muslim state; they were considered outsiders under the protection of the state, leading to the title of dhimmah, or protected people.[9] Their protection was guaranteed in a number of ways: by providing them with legal autonomy – meaning they could maintain their religious practices without interference – and protection during war. That said, there have no doubt been incidents throughout history in which that protection was threatened or revoked and the Muslim ruler engaged in persecution of religious minorities.[10] The fact remains, however, that there was never widespread systematic persecution of Christians, for example, in the Islamic world as there was in the late Roman Empire.[11] And the hostile circumstances that did occasionally arise, were not due to Islamic legislation per se, but were rather a result of an amalgam of social, political, and economic circumstances. So while Christians historically at times suffered at the hands of Muslims, it was almost never a result of their being Christian, or their beliefs, but a result of various factors related to the pursuit of power.[12]

Explanation:

7 0

3 years ago