Answer:
FDR was the first, and last, president to win more than two consecutive presidential elections and his exclusive four terms were in part a consequence of timing. His election for a third term took place as the United States remained in the throes of the Great Depression and World War II had just begun. While multiple presidents had sought third terms before, the instability of the times allowed FDR to make a strong case for stability.
Eventually U.S. lawmakers pushed back, arguing that term limits were necessary to keep abuse of power in check. Two years after FDR’s death, Congress passed the 22nd Amendment, limiting presidents to two terms. Then amendment was then ratified in 1951.
At the time of FDR’s third presidential run, however, “There was nothing but precedent standing in his way,” says Perry. “But, still, precedent, especially as it relates to the presidency, can be pretty powerful.”es and you have foreign policy with the outbreak of World War II in 1939,” says Barbara Perry, professor and director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. “And then you have his own political viability—he had won the 1936 election with more than two-thirds of the popular vote.
Answer:
an area within the visual field wherein the cell will fire if the target appears.
Explanation:
In order to accomplish this, the researcher will need to specify an area within the visual field wherein the cell will fire if the target appears. This is because there are about 100 billion neurons in the human brain and each of them fires at a speed of about 200 times per second, thus making it impossible to define the receptive field of a particular neuron without highlighting a specific area of that neuron and visualizing that specific neuron.
I do not want to look pessimist, but I sincerely don't think that's possible. Poverty is caused by many different factors, that depend on things the society can't change, at least not the way we tried to do it.
Poverty depends greatly on the political systems we have nowadays, because if political systems where "correct" maybe everybody would have a home and an income, but millionaires wouldn't be millionaires.
We should also not blame only politicians, because we as a society also affect how poverty works. I will not give my opinion on this though, because it depends greatly on how one thinks. Many think society hasn't done anything wrong, and others think different factors within society are to be blamed. It's a very controversial area.
Hope it helped,
BioTeacher101
Likely rule against Mark.
Mark and Charles had an oral agreement over a few years and nothing was put into writing. This would trigger the statute of frauds, wherein certain types of agreements are required to be memorialized in writing.
This means that there is a situation in which two people are having to be taken at their word. On top of that, the agreement was made while they were impaired.
If a court didn't rule against Mark at the outset, there would be an investigation into whether the agreement was enforceable, how impaired they were, whether anyone else heard them, and what the historic uses were but there isn't enough time for a prescriptive easement or adverse possession. But this is likely a summary judgment case based on statute of frauds.
