Answer:
picture is very small but it seems like a protest
Explanation:
the character in the house seems like uncle Sam
not sure of my answer though because the title says the opposite
When any state or country operates with a "command economy", this means that the government, instead of the "free market" or consumers, is in charge of determining output and production quotas.
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
In a RV or maybe a airplane hope this helps
Answer:
Option B
Explanation:
Complete Question:
Both the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Freedom Rides were successful in that they resulted in the integration of transportation. What was the difference in the way the successful outcomes were achieved
A. The Freedom Rides were successful despite having no central organization involved in the planning; the Montgomery Bus Boycott was supported by the NAACP.
B. The Freedom Rides succeeded due to federal intervention; the Montgomery Boycott succeeded due to local economic pressure.
C. The success of the Freedom Rides did not require the intervention of law enforcement; the Montgomery Bus Boycott involved local police.
D. The success of the Freedom Rides was due to the support of the American public, the success of the Montgomery Bus Boycott stemmed from international pressure.
The Montgomery Bus Boycott started due to Rosa Parks a black woman been arrested after she refused to give up her seat so that a white passenger could sit in it in Montgomery, Alabama. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was instigated against the policy of racial segregation on the public transit system of transportation. As a result of the boycott, Montgomery City Lines <u>suffered financially</u> by losing between 30,000 and 40,000 bus fares each day for a period of) 381 days(from December 5, 1955, to December 20. 1956, the bus boycott ended successfully after the Supreme Court upheld the district court's ruling that segregation on public buses and transportation was against the law.
The Freedom Rides was a political protest in 1961 by civil rights activists as a result of non-enforcement of the United States Supreme Court decisions which ruled that segregated public buses were unconstitutional. The ride was carried out by seven blacks and six whites left Washington, D.C into the segregated Southern United States which leads more than 400 volunteers who traveled towards the Southern United States after the first set of the freedom ride passengers were assaulted. The Riders were <u>successful in convincing the Federal Government</u> to enforce Supreme Court decisions.
