There are many reasons but here's two
1. The 'war' and invasion etc was fought in the West so the province that you are going to have to raise troops and revenue from to fight the war is the same one where all the fighting takes place.
Meanwhile the 'East' had Anatolia as a heartland for revenue and recruits that was untouched .
<span>2. There is a lot of evidence that it wasn't simply 'barbarian' invasion but also a large element of rebellion against central authority by local forces. These are the people who are supposed to supply your troops and revenue.</span>
D. Maintain the lords estate
Well Thomas thought that him spending above the amount of money set was unconstitutional, so I think that the answer has something to do with the fact that the president has the ability to acquire territory
<span>Rich Soil Rivers with plenty of fish The fur trade and lots of wild games.</span>
The paragraph is missing analysis connecting the argument--that the Executive Order was unconstitutional--to the evidence.
The paragraph does a good job explaining the context of Executive Order 9066 and what the order entailed. It ends the paragraph with the argument that the order was unconstitutional. However, there is no explanation of why the order is unconstitutional. The writer needs to explain how the Executive Order violated constitutional rights. The argument would be even more solid if it included the specific amendments or clauses that the order violated.