Answer:
In the explanation. :)
Explanation:
The Louisiana Purchase was negotiated between France and the United States, without consulting the various Native American tribes who lived on the land and who had not ceded the land to any colonial power.
Hope this helps. Have a great weekend!
Here, this should help.
*History Nerd Mode Activated!*
During the winter Stalin went through, he began attacking 'Kulaks' for not supplying enough food for the industrial workers. He also advocated the setting up of collective farms. The proposal involved small farmers joining forces to form large-scale units.
What set of ideas did the most to shape the American system of government?<span>... Which of the Enlightenment thinkers would agree with the </span>idea<span> that people are naturally good, but bad </span>governments<span> can corrupt them?</span><span> Montesquieu Jean-Jacques Rousseau Emmerich de Va²el Voltaire ...
</span>
Answer:
Hu Yaobang.
Explanation:
Hu Yaobang was born on the 20th of November, 1915 in Liuyang, Changsha, China and he died on the 15th of April, 1989 in Beijing, China. Hu was a high-ranking and prominent official of the People's Republic of China. He was served as the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from 1981 to 1982 and as the general secretary from 1982 to 1989 while also trying to erase the remnants of the Maoist Era (Mao Zedong).
On June 4, 1989, about 100,000 students gathered in Tiananmen Square to mourn and commemorate the death of the pro-reform leader Hu Yaobang, as well as demanding that the government continue with his legacy.
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation: