Answer:
D. a U.S. Court of Appeals
Explanation:
<em><u>The losing party in a decision by a trial court in the federal courts normally is entitled to appeal the decision to a federal court appeals.</u></em>
Humanity’s environmental footprint has increased, but at a much slower rate compared to population and economic growth because of more efficient use of natural resources. There is a long-standing dispute on the extent to which population growth causes environmental degradation. Most studies on this link have so far analyzed cross-country data, finding contradictory results. However, these country-level analyses suffer from the high level of dissimilarity between world regions and strong collinearity of population growth, income, and other factors. We argue that regional-level analyses can provide more robust evidence, isolating the population effect from national particularities such as policies or culture. We compile a dataset of 1062 regions within 22 European countries and analyze the effect from population growth on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and urban land use change between 1990 and 2006. Data are analyzed using panel regressions, spatial econometric models, and propensity score matching where regions with high population growth are matched to otherwise highly similar regions exhibiting significantly less growth. We find a considerable effect from regional population growth on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and urban land use increase in Western Europe. By contrast, in the new member states in the East, other factors appear more important.
Jefferson had noble ideals, which he did not always live up to. Andrew Jackson didn’t even have the high ideals; when it came to Native Americans and African slaves, he was an unrepetant bigot.
Jefferson was in theory opposed to slavery but felt he couldn’t afford to give up his slaves. He also believed that Native Americans were in theory equal to Europeans, and should be given equal rights, but only after they were re-educated in the Western fashion. Jackson just believed in slaughtering them.
One thing they both agreed on was opposition to any kind of wealth requirement for voting. This may be hard to believe today, as there are now several Constitutional amendments in place guaranteeing the right to vote to every adult citizen.
But 200 years ago, this issue was a big controversy. Hamilton and John Adams were both strongly convinced that it was right and proper to require each citizen to own a certain amount of property before they could vote.
Ironically, the Republicans of today seem to echo Hamilton and Adams by wanting to make it harder for poor people to vote. Supposedly this issue had been settled by the time Jackson came into office. (Although votes for non-whites and women had yet to be won.)
I think it's 'Congress chartered a second national bank in Philadelphia' but im not sure
