Answer:
They expanded their empire by trade.
Explanation:
Answer:
A. polygenic inheritance
Explanation:
The type of non-Mendelian inheritance exemplified in human eye color is polygenic inheritance. In polygenic inheritance, a single trait is determined by the additive effect of more than one gene. Several gene combine together to determine a trait. Such traits are not definite, they are usually within a range spectrum, examples are height, hair color and eye color. Eye color is reported by researchers to be controlled by up to 10 genes
On the contrary monogenic inheritance are responsible for traits which are controlled by a single gene such as the ability to roll the tongue
Answer: C. Foreign Corrupt Practises Act (FCPA)
Explanation: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is a United States law passed into law in 1977 that prohibits United State firms and individuals from paying bribes to foreign officials in furtherance of a business deal. The FCPA places no minimum amount for a punishment of a bribery payment. Accurate record-keeping of assets is required by the FCPA to ensure that only properly authorized transactions are taken under the purview of company management.
Answer:
He never called the legislative or lawmaking assembly into session.
The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
