That it was seen as a way to undermine the Neutrality Acts. In a way, they were right. Lend-Lease basically killed the Neutrality Acts when it was finally put into action and pushed the US a step closer to being a full participant in the war. It wasn't seen as a drain on the US Treasury and isolationists weren't upset over it because of support for the Axis powers -- it wasn't why the Lend Lease program was drafted up in the first place. It also wasn't seen as a direct violation of US law since it still had to be approved by Congress, though isolationists saw it as a violation of their belief that the US shouldn't get involved with foreign conflicts.
The basis of appeal for Homer Plessy was that the state law that allowed for segregated rail cars for black and white passengers violated the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. More specifically, Plessy argued that this violated the Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
In Justice Brown's opinion, he argues that the 14th amendment is not being violated in this scenario. This is because his interpretation of the 14th amendment is that this equal protection clause applies to the legal rights of an individual, not their social rights. In other words, Plessy is legally able to ride the railcar just like any other person. Therefor, the 14th amendment is not being violated.
The <span>excerpt from “Pakistan’s Malala” that shows Malala’s viewpoint is </span>"[S]he began believing that she was stronger than the things that scared her.The reason that is why she was disappointed is that it was because her school was likely closed permanently.