Answer:B desert.
Explanation: Deserts have low rain, and plants and animals have to adapt to life there.
The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
Answer:
Agriculture provides more than food. It contributes to economic growth, to better livelihoods and to provision of environmental services important to poor people in urban and rural areas. ... It suggests roles for the international community and development agencies, including DFID
Explanation:
not sure
Answer:
Bob contributed to his injury and apportioned damages
Explanation:
Under pure form of comparative negligence, a defendant is only responsible for the proportion of fault arising out of his negligence. The plaintiff is still allowed a compensation against damages even if he himself contributed to such a fault.
Comparative negligence mentions that whenever an accident takes place, the total negligence is a sum of proportionate negligence by each party, which contributed to such accident.
In such case, the negligence for an accident cannot be placed upon one party alone.
In the given case, since Bob filed a suit in a state that adopts pure form of comparative negligence, he shall be eligible to some compensation even if the fault was majorly his. Though, the quantum of compensation shall be based upon the determined fault of each party to the accident.
