Answer:
I think it's 60%
I hope it's helpful for you....
Answer:
B
Explanation:
Jim Crow law, in U.S. history, were any of the laws that enforced racial segregation in the South. Poll Tax were often enacted to prevent poor African Americans from voting.
C) humanism is the term from the renaissance
Hello there!! Here is your answer: The Wars of religion were a series of religious wars which were waged in Europe in the 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries. The wars, which were fought after the Protestant Reformation began in 1517, disrupted the religious and political order in the Catholic countries of Europe. However, religion was not the only cause of the wars, which also included revolts, territorial ambitions, and Great Power conflicts. For example, by the end of the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), Catholic France was allied with the Protestant forces against the Catholic Habsburg monarchy. The wars were largely ended by the Peace of Westphalia (1648), establishing a new political order that is now known as Westphalian sovereignty.
The conflicts began with the minor Knights' Revolt (1522), followed by the larger German Peasants' War (1524–1525) in the Holy Roman Empire. Warfare intensified after the Catholic Church began the Counter-Reformation in 1545 against the growth of Protestantism. The conflicts culminated in the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), which devastated Germany and killed one-third of its population. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) put an end to the war by recognising three separate Christian traditions in the Holy Roman Empire: Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism.[4][5] Although many European leaders were "sickened" by the bloodshed by 1648,[6] religious wars continued to be waged in the post-Westphalian period until the 1710s, including the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639–1651) on the British Isles, the Savoyard–Waldensian wars (1655–1690), and the Toggenburg War (1712) in the Western Alps. Popular memory of the wars lasted even longer. =THIS INFORMATION IS FOUND FROM WIKIPEDIA=
Answer:
Explanation:
The main reason congress tends, in practice, not to use this authority is that congress rarely wants to. Congressional Democrats didn’t block the “surge” in Iraq, congressional Republicans didn’t block the air war in Kosovo, etc. And for congress, it’s quite convenient to be able to duck these issues. Handling Libya this way means that those members of congress who want to go on cable and complain about the president’s conduct are free to do so, but those who don’t want to talk about Libya can say nothing or stay vague. Nobody’s forced to take a vote that may look bad in retrospect, and nobody in congress needs to take responsibility for the success or failure of the mission. If things work out well in Libya, John McCain will say he presciently urged the White House to act. If things work out poorly in Libya, McCain will say he consistently criticized the White House’s fecklessness. Nobody needs to face a binary
