A bicameral legislature provided the perfect opportunity for compromise, in fact, for "The Great Compromise." Small states got their equal representation in the Senate, large states got their proportional representation in the House, and everyone went home happy
Number 3 is C,because think about it say your favorite soda increased in price but the generic dollar store brand that tastes the same is still a dollar. And imagine you're on a super tight budget, you would more likely go for tbe generic brand rather than the name brand.
Answer:
A nation is a group of people who share some similarities, that can be language, culture, customs, and so on.
A state is a political authority that has territorial control over one specific area. Most states have the monopoly of the use of force.
FInally, sovereignty is the quality that a state has to govern over a specific territory without outside interference.
Mnay states are nation-states, meaning that the same nation also forms a state (for example, Japan), but other states are multinational entities where several nations live together (for example, Russia or India). And sovereignty is a quality that every state possesses, otherwise, they would not have legitimacy over the territory that they hold.
Answer: Coupons
Explanation:
Coupons are documents issued to customers in order to enjoy financial discount on products purchase in a store. It is a form of sales promotion which could serve as price discrimination used to help retailers keep their customers.
Answer:
The Supreme Court case known as Kelo v. City of New London was controversial because it allowed greater use of the power of eminent domain.
Explanation:
Kelo v. City of New London is a judgment of the US Supreme Court on whether the government can expropriating private property and transferring it to another private entity, with the purpose of economic development of the city. The plaintiff, Kelo, was the resident of the requisitioned land, and the defendant was the municipality of New London, Connecticut. On June 23, 2005, the latest judgment of the US Supreme Court on this case attracted wide attention. This case involved a “paid collection” of land. According to the latest judgment of the US Supreme Court, local municipalities have the power to impose private land for commercial development – as long as such development falls within the category of “public use”. The Supreme Court ruled that “the city’s planned deployment of land acquisition is in line with 'public use' and within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment clause.” Therefore, the case also triggered a new round of discussions on how to implement the Fifth Amendment, how to explain it, and how to use it.
