Answer:
Thomas Jefferson was against the Lousiana Purchase and felt that it was a waster of money for the US as a young nation.
Explanation:
Answer&Explanation:
Rehabilitation specialists are health experts who specializes in helping patients gain back their strength and former lifestyle after they have experienced a traumatic incident,injury or substance.
They are trained healthcare specialist who help recovering patients through counselling or physical therapy.
Rehabilitation specialist undergoes certain trainings where they go to seminars which focus on psychiatric rehabilitation, recovery,trauma,substance abuse and cultural competence.
<span>19.5 percent of nuclear electricity is generated in the us </span>
It means that the size constancy is an ability to correctly perceive the sizes of objects despite the changes in retinal-image size created by changes in viewing distance. The physical properties of an object may not change, but the human perceptual system contains processes that adapt to the input in an effort to deal with the outside environment.
One kind of visual subjective constancy is size constancy. People's perception of a specific object's size will remain constant within a set range, independent of changes in distance or the size of the video on the retina. The magnitude of the perceptual qualities still affects how an image is seen. As the distance between the object and the observer increases, optical principles predict that for the same item, the size of the image on the retina will change.
#SPJ4
Answer:
3. Freedom of speech
Explanation:
In the case of Schenck v. United States (1919) concerned protest activities against American involvement in World War I. Justice Oliver Holmes, Jr. said that trying to convince draft-age men to resist induction was intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding. The Supreme Court decision in the case related to a freedom of speech. In the case of Schenck v. United States (1919), it was mentioned that speech which creates clear and present danger is not protected under the first amendment. In this case Supreme court highlighted that the power of the federal government over an individual's right to freedom of speech.