Answer:
do nothing
Explanation:
Wayne and Cheryl were at a restaurant eating dinner when he noticed a faint smell of smoke coming from the air conditioning vent. No one else in the busy restaurant seemed to be concerned about the odor, and Wayne was not sure if it was the result of an electrical problem or of food scorching in the kitchen. Wayne’s uncertainty, combined with the observation that others were not taking action, means that Wayne will probably DO NOTHING
As per the Anti-Federalists,
- to support the Constitution
- to answer criticisms from the Anti-Federalists describes the purpose of the Federalist Papers
<h3>What are Anti-Federalists?</h3>
Generally, Anti-Federalism was a political movement that began in the late 18th century that opposed the establishment of a more powerful central government in the United States of America.
It also opposed the adoption of the Constitution of 1787. More power was delegated to state governments under the previous constitution, which was referred to as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
Federalists were those who advocated for a stronger national republic and the Constitution as the governing document of the United States. Anti-Federalists were those who advocated for more decentralized and localized forms of governance and were opposed to the Constitution being ratified.
Read more about Anti-Federalists
brainly.com/question/29496480
#SPJ1
CQ
Which of these describes the purpose of the Federalist Papers? Select all that apply
to discourage factions
to support the Constitution
to provide safeguards against tyranny
to answer criticisms from the Anti-Federalists
Answer:
No they don't, he regularly alludes to them as "uncouth" and requests that they be removed from their general public.
Explanation:
Morals and style topple over in favor of relativism in Virginia. "Countries raised to freedom and to decision themselves consider some other type of government colossal and in spite of nature. Those familiar with government do likewise". Montaigne relates the reality without condemning it: his long experience has instructed him that all judgment is nevertheless the declaration of propensity; thusly, nothing licenses him to assert that freedom is a decent, and its nonattendance a shrewdness; to esteem freedom would be confirmation of ethnocentrism, and to mask propensity as all inclusive reason. This would be significantly more apparent with regards to judgments about excellence: who couldn't refer to a few precedents outlining the insecurity of the human perfect? "It is likely that we know minimal about what excellence is in nature and by and large, since to our own human magnificence we give such a large number of various structures".
Daniel Webster was a Senator From the North
Answer:
Smith probably wins, because parties for whose protection a regulatory statute has been enacted often can recover amounts paid under a contract declared illegal by the statute.
Explanation:
