1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Jobisdone [24]
3 years ago
11

IS THIS RIGHT? PLEASE CHECK FOR ME?

English
2 answers:
jenyasd209 [6]3 years ago
4 0
The correct answer should be "it forces the reader to pause, emphasizing the calm of the snow." because the tone of the poem is peaceful and content, not choppy and nervous
AlekseyPX3 years ago
4 0
The correct one is the third one
You might be interested in
We've got two children,, but.......... them with us any longer
vekshin1

Answer:

We have 2 children, but they do not live with us any longer.

Explanation:

7 0
2 years ago
Please help me. I need a summary for the Law of Life by Jack London 2 paragraphs.
Olin [163]

Answer: where's the passage  hun ?

Explanation:

4 0
2 years ago
What do you think the phrase “my world lost its color” means?
Nesterboy [21]

Answer:

I believe that the phrase "my world lost its color" means that whatever brought excitement or happiness into your world is now gone. The word color, I believe, is meant to mean "Joy". When someone says that there world has lost its color, there trying to say that they feel as though there is something missing that once made there world happy and it is now not.

Explanation:

5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Question 1
egoroff_w [7]

Answer:

Neither Barry nor Bill regretted <u>there</u> decision.  (This should be "their.")

Explanation:

Corrected pronoun agreement:

Neither Barry nor Bill regretted <u>his</u> decision.

5 0
3 years ago
If the President of the United States were accused of accepting bribes while in office what power does Congress have to bring ch
Y_Kistochka [10]

The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" ( Article I, section 2 ) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…[but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" ( Article I, section 3 ). The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment.

The concept of impeachment originated in England and was adopted by many of the American colonial governments and state constitutions. As adopted by the framers, this congressional power is a fundamental component of the constitutional system of “checks and balances.” Through the impeachment process, Congress charges and then tries an official of the federal government for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The definition of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was not specified in the Constitution and has long been subject to debate.

In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called “managers,” acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified such officials from holding public offices in the future. There is no appeal. Since 1789, about half of Senate impeachment trials have resulted in conviction and removal from office.

Historical Development

In The Federalist , No. 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote that impeachment is "a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men" accused of violating the “public trust.” Hamilton and his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention knew that the history of impeachment as a constitutional process dated from 14th-century England, when the fledgling Parliament sought to make the king's advisers accountable. By the mid-15th century, impeachment had fallen into disuse in England, but in the early 17th century, the excesses of the English kings prompted Parliament to revive its impeachment power. Even as the Constitution's framers toiled in Philadelphia in 1787, the impeachment trial of British official Warren Hastings was in progress in London and avidly followed in America. Hastings, who was eventually acquitted, was charged with oppression, bribery, and fraud as colonial administrator and first governor-general in India

The American colonial governments and early state constitutions followed the British pattern of trial before the upper legislative body on charges brought by the lower house. Despite these precedents, a major controversy arose at the Constitutional Convention about whether the Senate should act as the court of impeachment. Opposing that role for the Senate, James Madison and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney asserted that it would make the president too dependent on the legislative branch. They suggested, as alternative trial bodies, the Supreme Court or the chief justices of the state supreme courts. Hamilton and others argued, however, that such bodies would be too small and susceptible to corruption. In the end, after much wrangling, the framers selected the Senate as the trial forum. To Hamilton fell the task of explaining the convention's decision. In The Federalist , No. 65, he argued:

The Convention thought the Senate the most fit depository of this important trust. Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel confidence enough in its own situation, to preserve unawed and uninfluenced the necessary impartiality between an individual accused, and the representatives of the people, his accusers?

There was also considerable debate at the convention in Philadelphia over the definition of impeachable crimes. In the early proposals, the president and other officials could be removed on impeachment and conviction for "corrupt conduct," or for "malpractice or neglect of duty." Later, the wording was changed to "treason, bribery, or corruption," and then to "treason or bribery" alone. Contending that "treason or bribery" was too narrow a definition, George Mason proposed adding "mal-administration" but switched to "other high crimes and misdemeanors against the state" when Madison commented that "mal-administration" was too broad. A final revision defined impeachable offenses as "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • How does a hard-news story differ from the opinion essay?
    12·2 answers
  • Is anyone good at writing short stories?
    10·2 answers
  • GUMMY BEARS.....
    10·1 answer
  • 49. giving human qualities to nonhuman subjects (1 point)
    5·2 answers
  • JUNIO
    5·1 answer
  • Which answer choice is the best revision of the nonstandard sentence shown
    7·1 answer
  • How does wiesel create pathos in his nobel prize acceptance speech
    7·2 answers
  • Which element should you avoid including in a summary
    5·1 answer
  • What the correct answer and 100 percent sure
    6·1 answer
  • Click to correct the three capitalization errors.
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!