Answer:
empty - shell
Explanation:
Empty - shell marriage -
It refers to the phase in the married life , where both the spouse live together , but as a separate personality and does not really care about each other , is referred to as empty shell marriage.
There is loss of charm and passion in the marriage and both the individual does not really think of talking or tries to resolve the situation and are happy as alone in their own space.
Hence, from the given statement of the question, the correct term is empty-shell marriage.
Charles Schenck was the general secretary of the Socialist Party in the United States. He was arrested under the espionage act which outlined that no man has the right to print, say or publish anything against the government.
Explanation:
Charles was arrested because he was proved to be guilty for distributing pamphlets which urged the people to resist the war and he also urged the people to assert their right by refusing to be selected to go to war filed. He was also charged to have stopped and obstructed the recruitment efforts of the government to select many soldiers during world war I.
The supreme court ruled rightly saying that the protection of free speech is important but not at the cost of a situation which for example mean, man who unnecessarily creates panic by shouting "fire" in a public place. He had the right to speak but it must be noted that it created panic that people started to rush. Similarly in this case, Charles had the right to speak but he created fear in the minds of civilians who abstained from cooperating with the government and on this basis Charles was victimized.
Answer:
Wait, is the dog apart of the question?
Answer:
Como Ecuador se conoce, en geografía, la línea imaginaria, equidistante de los dos polos geográficos y perpendicular al eje de rotación de la Tierra, que divide el planeta en dos hemisferios: norte y sur. El Ecuador es el paralelo de latitud 0°, perpendicular también al meridiano de Greenwich.
Explanation:
<span>irresistible impulse test
This is a powerful drive for self protection as an excuse. The condition is often looked at as some kind of madness, in which the respondent contends that they ought not be held criminally at risk for their activities that violated the law, since they couldn't control those activities, regardless of whether they knew them to not be right. It was added to the M'Naghten law as a reason for exoneration in the mid twentieth century</span>