Answer:
<u><em>C. proximity</em></u>
Explanation:
The<u><em> Gestalt principle of proximity </em></u>states that objects and shapes form groups if they are close to one another. The shapes, sizes, and objects do not matter in this case even when there are visible differences. The law shows that smaller elements come together in a composition.
<em></em>
<em>PLS MARK ME</em> <em><u>BRAINLIEST</u></em>
87 years ago, the Founding Fathers created a brand new country here based on the idea that everyone is equal. Now, we are at war with ourselves, and this war is testing whether that kind of country can survive. A battle of this war was fought right here where we are standing. We are here today to dedicate a part of this battlefield as a cemetery for the soldiers that died here. This is the right thing to do. There is no way that we can ever bless this ground today more than the soldiers that died here already have. We can’t even come close. No one is going to care or remember the words we say here, but no one can ever forget what those soldiers did here. It’s up to the rest of us that are still alive to dedicate ourselves to finishing what these soldiers have started. It’s up to us to dedicate ourselves to saving the country, and remind ourselves that people have died for this cause. We have to promise that the soldiers here did not die for nothing. We have to promise that this country, under God, will be free again. We have to promise that a country that is made up of the people, was created by the people, and made to serve the people can exist in this world.
Answer:
B
Explanation: The federal government did not have enough power to enforce its laws, so the Constitution gave the federal government more power than the states.
Answer:
Mark as brainliest
Explanation:
symbolic presence in international legal accounts of the 19th century, but for historians of the era its importance has often been doubted. This article seeks to re-interpret the place of the Berlin General Act in late 19th-century history, suggesting that the divergence of views has arisen largely as a consequence of an inattentiveness to the place of systemic logics in legal regimes of this kind.
Issue Section:
Articles
INTRODUCTION
The Berlin West Africa Conference of 1884-1885 has assumed a canonical place in historical accounts of late 19th-century imperialism 1 and this is no less true of the accounts provided by legal scholars seeking to trace the colonial origins of contemporary international law. 2 The overt purpose of the Conference was to ‘manage’ the ongoing process of colonisation in Africa (the ‘Scramble’ as it was dubbed by a Times columnist) so as to avoid the outbreak of armed conflict between rival colonial powers. Its outcome was the conclusion of a General Act 3 ratified by all major colonial powers including the US. 4 Among other things, the General Act set out the conditions under which territory might be acquired on the coast of Africa; it internationalised two rivers (the Congo and the Niger); it orchestrated a new campaign to abolish the overland trade in slaves; and it declared as ‘neutral’ a vast swathe of Central Africa delimited as the ‘conventional basin of the Congo’. A side event was the recognition given to King Leopold’s fledgling Congo Free State that had somewhat mysteriously emerged out of the scientific and philanthropic activities of the Association internationale du Congo . 5
If for lawyers and historians the facts of the Conference are taken as a common starting point, this has not prevented widely divergent interpretations of its significance from emerging. On one side, one may find an array of international lawyers, from John Westlake 6 in the 19th century to Tony Anghie 7 in the 21 st century, affirming the importance of the Conference and its General Act for having created a legal and political framework for the subsequent partition of Africa. 8 For Anghie, Berlin ‘transformed Africa into a conceptual terra nullius ’, silencing native resistance through the subordination of their claims to sovereignty, and providing, in the process, an effective ideology of colonial rule. It was a conference, he argues, ‘which determined in important ways the future of the continent and which continues to have a profound influence on the politics of contemporary Africa’. 9
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options attached, we can say the following.
One of the dilemmas Spain faced regarding the new colonies established by them was the powerful international presence of the Spanish crown in those new territories against the cost of maintaining that presence.
It is well known that the Spanish conquerors wanted to exploit the many raw materials and natural resources in their colonies to enrich the Spanish crown. However, there was an implicit cost in this feat. Indeed, a high cost it was.
Furthermore, the fear Spanish had of possible occupations by French or English settlers of territories such as Florida, made them accept the presence of Native American Indian tribes like the Seminoles. trying to protect its large peninsula.
