Answer:
The King would have power over everyone in the fuedal system. They would provide land to the nobles. The nobles then pay knights to protect the land. In exchange for protection from the knights, the peasants are obligated to cultivate, grow crops, and give a portition of their produce to the nobles.
Explanation:
A fuedal system is a system where the King divides up his land and gives them to the nobles to grow. The nobles will use their own money to grow these lands. They do this by hiring/paying people of the lower class to do it. Though the peasants are necessary hired, more obligated.
The communities are not benefiting because the water infrasructure has not reached their society.
<h3>What is the National Water Act 1998?</h3>
In South Africa, this is a legislation that provide fundamental reform of the law relating to water resources and guide the method of supplying water in the country.
The Act ensured that water supply are protected, developed, conserved and well in a sustainable manner for the benefit of all people.
Read more about National Water Act
brainly.com/question/14284975
#SPJ1
BECAUSE WE'RE AWESOME
but no seriously I couple were because the land was good for farming and there were lots of wildlife hunting and middle of the map and good arctecture
Answer: The situation is unconstitutional because it is defamation or libel
Explanation: The freedom of the press is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the American Constitution, which regulates all the rights and obligations of the media, including the press. This means that everyone has the right to freely report and write, and freely express their opinions without censorship. However, there are some limitations when it comes to press freedom. There are, among other things, the extent to which the journalist, i.e the writer of the article, can secure the protection of a confidential source, then also indecency. In this our case it is defamation which, when it comes to defamation in the press, calls libel. If Nancy wanted to make up a story about a politician she personally dislikes, then it is defamation. The First Amendment also does not guarantee the journalist the right to interfere personal feelings about the politician with professional writing in the newspaper. This means that if Nancy made up the story of a politician without real evidence of any wrongdoing, then it was defamation in the newspaper, therefore, libel.
