Answer:
so the reason there are so many wind farms here in the mid west is because we live in a "valley" next to the rocky mountains so the air blows down the mountain and into the "valley"
Explanation:
B. They could not participate in the existing French legislature.
The estates would meet periodically at an assembly at the Estates-General. At the assemblies, the third estate did not hold a lot of power and was at a disadvantage. The first and second estates would exercise their powers to veto any proposals.
The third estate (commoners) were locked out, so, they relocated to the Royal Tennis Court to discuss a potential rebellion, this was known as the Tennis Court Oath.
The answer has to be A because the North had thought it was wrong to own slaves
No.
As a charged isn't constrained to give prove in a criminal antagonistic continuing, they may not be addressed by a prosecutor or judge unless they do as such. Be that as it may, should they choose to affirm, they are liable to round of questioning and could be discovered liable of prevarication. As the race to keep up a charged individual's entitlement to quiet keeps any examination or round of questioning of that individual's position, it takes after that the choice of advice in the matter of what proof will be called is an essential strategy regardless in the ill-disposed framework and thus it may be said that it is a legal counselor's control of reality. Surely, it requires the aptitudes of insight on the two sides to be decently similarly hollowed and subjected to an unbiased judge.
By differentiate, while litigants in most affable law frameworks can be constrained to give an announcement, this announcement isn't liable to round of questioning by the prosecutor and not given under vow. This enables the litigant to clarify his side of the case without being liable to round of questioning by a talented resistance. Notwithstanding, this is predominantly on the grounds that it isn't the prosecutor yet the judges who question the respondent. The idea of "cross"- examination is altogether due to antagonistic structure of the customary law.
Judges in an antagonistic framework are unprejudiced in guaranteeing the reasonable play of due process, or basic equity. Such judges choose, regularly when called upon by advise as opposed to of their own movement, what confirm is to be conceded when there is a debate; however in some customary law wards judges assume to a greater extent a part in choosing what confirmation to concede into the record or reject. Best case scenario, mishandling legal carefulness would really make ready to a one-sided choice, rendering out of date the legal procedure being referred to—run of law being illegally subordinated by lead of man under such separating conditions.
The correct answer is "informal social ties."
With that statement, Sociologist Robert Putnam was referring to informal social ties and how these promote bureaucracy.
Robert Putnam is a Professor of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He analyses the society of the US, observing how it has deteriorated civic and personal values. He wrote the book "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community," in which he suggests that new forms of social engagement must be developed to change the situation.
