Answer:
<em>The interest groups on the first Amendment allowed people to assemble together to speak their opinions and rights.</em>
<em>In 1971 the Federal Election Campaign Act was passed, setting limits on how people donate money in public disclosure of campaign.</em>
Explanation:
<em>People or individual would concur with me that interest groups under the Constitution have their right to encourage a particular point of view. What most people do not agree at some point, however, this is the level that some interest group influence activities preserved under the First constitution,
</em>
<em>
In addition to rights of free speech the First constitution allows people the right to come together. for example pluralists states that assembling in groups is normal and that people will tend to move toward others with same views</em>
<em>As of today, the debate about interest groups often circulates around whether the First Amendment shields the rights of groups and individuals to lend money, and if government can control the use of this money. </em>
<em>In 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act was passed, setting limits on how much money presidential and vice-presidential candidates and their families could provide for their own campaigns.it also made unions and cooperation's to form PACs and expected public disclosure of campaign donations and their sources. </em>
<em>In 1 the year 1974, the act was modified in a way to control the amount of money used on congressional campaigns. </em>
Answer:
To compete with Spain and England for territory
Explanation:
Hernan Cortes (1485-1547) was a Spanish colonizer and conqueror, who leaded the conquest of the Mexican territories, that started in 1519 with the occupation of Veracruz. The tales about the sacking of the Mexican capital, Tenochtitlan, are still legendary nowadays.
After the takeover of Veracruz, Cortes gave the order of sinking his own ships (it was thought they were burnt, but nowadays that hypothesis is being questioned). Anyway, he destroyed his ships on purpouse to force his men to go forward and conquer the New World, both in the militar and spiritual (goal of spreading the Christian religion) dimensions.
- Agreement with his decision: of course it is an incredibly effective manner of ensuring that his men would be motivated to conquer the territory, mainly because they did not have an alternative choice. They had to become rulers there or be lost in the middle of unknown lands. It can be claimed how the ultimate goal justifies the means.
- Disagreement with the decision: it can be argued how unethical is that he prevented his men from deciding if they wanted to participate or not on the mission. He eliminated the choice.
It's too short. Write at least 20 characters to explain it well. Your answer can't be empty
