B)not suited for slave labour
This is in my opinion one of the aspects that makes the central courts and the different lines of thought within a single subject so interesting. The clash of ideas that we have in this case is a perfect example.
- On one side we have those who look at the current 30 million uninsured Americans, which include millions in Texas, and the undeniable success it had in Massachusetts. Most of them conclude that this mandate is a government success.
- On the other hand, we can find those who believe that this is a terrible invasion of the government to the citizen's free will to choose their own healthcare options, they see government overreach, and at the same time an unprecedented intrusion on individual liberties to which there is no justification.
Unfortunately this is something that millions of Americans have been forced into. It's evident how they refused to create a public health care system, and instead give more power to the private sector.
After this short debate of ideas, I will give you one question to ponder on: Which principle is more important? Your freedom, your civil liberties, and your freedom from the government line of thought, or the possibilty of providing health care to millions of uninsured Americans?
I hope this solves your question!
Happy 2019! :)
Answer:
her persecution of protestant heretics, whom she burned at the stake in the hundreds
The U.S didn't want war but rather Texas which was part of the Mexican empire at the time wanted a secession from the empire and join the U.S but was denied privilege to Independence, So the U.S sent troops to the area to sort with the tension to diplomatically solve this but got attacked with casualties. The rest is history
I hope I was a help to you
