Answer:
Prior to 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, state legislatures elected two U.S. senators to represent them in Congress. Members in each state House and each state Senate, in most cases, would meet separately to pick a candidate as its representative in the U.S. Senate.
Explanation:
Spanish explorers were the first Europeans to explore the coastal regions of present-day South Carolina. In 1521, Francisco Gordillo sailed to the Carolina coast from his base in Santo Domingo; no settlement was attempted, but several dozen Native Americans were enslaved.
Five years later, Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón sponsored a short-lived effort to settle several hundred persons in the Winyah Bay area (near present-day Myrtle Beach), but unfavorable weather and sickness soon forced a return to Santo Domingo. Nonetheless, later in the 1500s the Spanish established new bases in Florida and spread northward with a string of small settlements.
The French presence was established in 1562 when Jean Ribault brought a group of French Huguenots to Parris Island, but Spanish power in the area rendered the colony untenable.
The English claim to the area arrived with the 1497 voyage of John Cabot, but efforts to colonize did not occur for more than 130 years. In 1629, a grant was awarded to Sir Robert Heath, which included today's North and South Carolina and all land westward to the Pacific Ocean. No settlement activity took place under Heath and in 1663, the lands were granted to eight of Charles II's most loyal supporters, the "lords proprietors."
Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, assisted by the political philosopher John Locke, drafted the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina (1669), an intricate and romanticized feudal scheme that was further burdened by the recommended use of grandiose titles for the nobles and their retainers. Whether or not the cumbersome system was seriously intended to be implemented or was simply a means to appeal to the high-born settlers' vanity is not clear.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
I am going to take into consideration the 1st. Amendment to the United States Constitution.
It is true that the federal government must often balance protecting individual liberties and providing for order and security. We have seen how, at times, priority is given to one over the other, depending on the circumstances.
However, according to my thinking and belief systems, the federal government should always place more emphasis on protecting individual liberties. Just when the exceptional case is necessary, then the federal government must provide for order and security.
As stated in the 1st. Amendment, citizens must always have their freedom of speech and freely express what they believe is right; this includes reasonable critics of the economic and political systems, as well as to highlight positive attributes too.
Respecting the differences has always been a trademark for true democracies.
It is understandable that in times of conflict, as was the case of WWI and WWII, the government has put restrictions on certain liberties.
Some would say that the September 11 attacks justify the creation of the type of surveillance the government placed on the citizens, but that is when a fine line was crossed between protection and "espionage" without the consent of the citizens.
Answer:
pls I don't understand pls explain
<span>Products that customers consider essentials or necessities tend to have less elasticity than products viewed as luxury or discretionary. If a customer believes he needs a certain product for survival, quality of life, or pleasure, he is more likely to stretch a bit to purchase the item if the price goes up. On the contrary, a product viewed as optional is a less likely purchase as the price increases because the customer believes he can live without it.Customer OptionsThe more options a customer has to meet a particular functional or emotional need, the more elastic a product's demand. This is why a company with a monopoly has a huge advantage. Customers don't have options and feel compelled to buy from the given provider. In highly competitive industries, price differentials are usually less among competing brands because of the ability customers have to select lower-priced alternatives. A closely related factor is the cost of switching brands. Cell phone customers often wait to change providers to avoid penalties if they are obligated to service contracts.
</span><span />
