Which of the following was a British advantage during the Revolutionary War?

What was the Great Leap Forward, and why was it disastrous?

ivanzaharov [21]

The Great Leap Forward, intended to be a five-year effort, was halted in 1960 after three brutal years. The initiative is said to have cost an estimated 20 to 48 million lives as a result of catastrophic economic policy, compounded by adverse weather conditions including a flood that killed 2 million people and the subsequent crop failures that led to starvation. In addition to the fatalities, the Great Leap Forward had negative environmental impacts as communes were encouraged to set up "backyard" production plants for needed supplies such as steel, timber and cement. In 1960, an extensive drought further added to the country's troubles.

6 0

3 years ago

HALP!!! 50 POINTS PLEASE HELP ME. Summarize the significance of the state's rights issue on the Civil War. must be 150+ words

bulgar [2K]

Alright. States’s right was easily of the biggest issues during the civil war. The main idea is that the Slaving-owning South believed that the Abolitionist North would eventually make slavery illegal, as the North held more political power then the South. They decided that in order to keep the North from using the federal government to abolish slavery, they would weaken the federal government. Thus the concept of State’s rights was used as an argument for Southern leaders and politicians.

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What are some military actions and how are they described

Fofino [41]

Answer:

A military operation is the coordinated military actions of a state, or a non-state actor, in response to a developing situation. These actions are designed as a military plan to resolve the situation in the state or actor's favor.

Explanation:

hope this helps!!

3 0

2 years ago

(NEED HELP) In this assignment, you will write a three- to four-paragraph Supreme Court opinion for

liberstina [14]

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane D. Kirstein, U .S. Attorney's Office, San Antonio, TX, Plaintiff–Appellee. Laura G. Greenberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Bradford W. Bogan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender's Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant–Appellant.

In this case, we must decide whether the district court's imposition of a condition of supervised release prohibiting the defendant from “residing or going to places where a minor or minors are known to frequent without prior approval of the probation officer” was plainly erroneous. We conclude it was not and AFFIRM.

I.

In January 1990, Michael Fields was convicted in Wisconsin state court of second degree sexual assault of a child.1 He was sentenced to five years in prison, but only served one year; the rest of his term was probated. Fields was required to register as a sex offender in Wisconsin for the rest of his life. Because of this conviction, he must also register as a sex offender in Texas. Fields has thrice been arrested and convicted for failing to register as a sex offender.2 He has also been repeatedly told by state authorities in both Wisconsin and Texas that he must register as a sex offender, instructions with which it appears he has never complied.3

Fields was arrested by the Austin Police Department for failing to register as a sex offender in April 2013. The next month, he was indicted in federal court and charged with one count of failing to register as a sex offender in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”).4 After unsuccessfully moving to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that SORNA was unconstitutional, Fields pled guilty in July 2013.

In November 2013, Fields appeared before the district court for his sentencing hearing. At that hearing, the court reviewed Fields's criminal history record, and concluded that, even discounting several convictions where it was disputed as to whether Fields committed the crime, he had “a solid criminal record since 1974.” After hearing from counsel, the court then sentenced Fields to a 27–month sentence of imprisonment, followed by ten years of supervised release. The supervision included a number of conditions, including, as relevant here, a requirement that:

The defendant shall follow all other lifestyle restrictions or treatment requirements imposed by the therapist, and continue those restrictions as they pertain to avoiding risk situations throughout the course of supervision. This includes not residing or going to places where a minor or minors are known to frequent without prior approval of the probation officer.

Fields did not object to this condition. This timely appeal follows.

II.

We normally review conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion.5 In this case, because Fields did not object to his supervised release condition while before the district court, we review for plain error.6 As the Supreme Court has made clear, plain error is a demanding standard:

6 0

3 years ago

Why did colonists feel the Articles of Confederation were necessary even though the Declaration of Independence was already writ

Finger [1]

<em>D. The Declaration of Independence outlined a relationship between individuals and the government but did not detail the power and control of that government.</em>

Explanation:

The Articles of Confederation was known for its many weaknesses. It gave little to no power to the central government, which made Americans eventually uneasy and lead to the creation of the Declaration of Independence.

The Articles was very weak and granted the central government barely any power that it needed. The government could not tax the states, they had to out right ask the states for money. This lead to the United States not being able to pay off war debts, or other important things that were valuable to keeping up a country. The government also couldn't regulate trade, which was very important during this time and keep up the wealth and importance of the United States. They also couldn't do things such as enforcing laws and passing new laws, they needed many of the states approval before doing anything.

The people who were in support of creating a new constitution were the Federalists, but those who wanted to keep a small government were called Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists were most likely scared of a big government because they didn't want the government to abuse their power. They didn't want a repeat of what happened with Great Britain, with "<em>taxation without representation</em>" and not letting people voice opinions, practice different religions, or pass absurd laws that would overall damage individuals. Federalists felt that keeping the government this way was hurting the United States and they should be represented by a big government, obviously not one that was abusive, but one that could get things done while still having the people in mind.

When the Declaration of Independence was created, most of the people focused on the relationship between the government and the people, as it was a hot topic in the past. Many people wanted to make sure the government would not get out of hand and to maintain the good relationship between having a bigger government and the wishes of the American citizens.

Many people also felt that the Articles of Confederation was still needed, as that properly dictated how much power the government could hold, while the Declaration of Independence mostly focused on the relationship between the individuals and the government.

3 0

3 years ago