<span>I believe that the
correct answer is (b). As the tribe divided over voluntary removal, Elias
Boudinot and John Ridge became the two Cherokee leaders of opposite viewpoints.
Boudinot considered that the removal was inevitable and signed the Treaty of New
Echota in 1835 with other treaty supporters. On the other hand, the chief of
Cherokee nation, John Ridge, tried to stop white political leaders from forcing
them to move; he was backed by the majority. Their resistance resulted in the "Trail
of Tears" (Nu na da ul tsun yi (the place where they cried)) in which
one-fourth of the Cherokee forced to move died.</span>
Answer:
Plato Answer
Explanation:
The narrative of “The Brown Chest” has a fragmented perception of time, as the story jumps years and even decades at a time. The fragmented timeframe is evident in how the narrator goes back and forth across his childhood and adulthood, and how he perceives things differently at each stage. When he’s older, he cherishes the old photos, clothes, and trinkets, even though he didn’t care for them when he was a child:
These books had fat pages edged in gold, thick enough to hold, on both sides, stiff brown pictures, often oval, of dead people. He didn't like looking into these albums, even when his mother was explaining them to him.
Updike possibly chose this unorthodox structure to contrast the reactions of the narrator from disdain to excitement and melancholy over old family memories.
And when he, or the grown-up with him, lifted the lid of the chest, an amazing smell rushed out—deeply sweet and musty, of mothballs and cedar, but that wasn't all of it. The smell seemed also to belong to the contents—lace tablecloths and wool blankets on top, but much more underneath . . . His parents' college diplomas seemed to be under the blankets . . .
It is based on the assumption that the <span>diplomats will obey the laws of their country of residence. They don't have to abide by laws because they have immunity that protects them from prosecution. This was introduced to make it possible for diplomats to say what they wanted against those who ruled without being prosecuted.</span>
Answer:
After being held up in the courts for more than a year, President Barack Obama’s signature immigration executive actions that proposed expanding his deferred action policies to allow individuals residing in the country illegally the opportunity to avoid deportation and obtain work permits and driver’s licenses were blocked from being implemented in a 4-4 ruling delivered by the United States Supreme Court on June 23, 2016.[1]
Without a ninth justice, due to the vacancy left on the court by former Justice Antonin Scalia's unexpected death, the Supreme Court was unable to rule on the case. The 4-4 split decision upheld the lower court's ruling, which blocked the new and expanded immigration policies from going into effect. President Obama blamed the court's inability to issue a ruling on Republican senators who have declined to hold a confirmation hearing on his Supreme Court nominee Judge Merrick Garland.[2]
