The answer is 1,3,4 are all it
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Argue a case for appointing judges and then argue a case for having them elected.
In the case of appointing judges, many experts agree on the idea that appointed is better because judges have to be neutral. They serve the Constitution, they do not serve any political party or particular interests.
Once appointed, the judges are going to ratify, so it is supposed that their integrity is double-checked.
In other cases, some arguments favor the election of judges, stating that people should be trusted to elect judges. Through this election, judges will be driven to serve the people who put their trust in them to impart justice.
If they are elected, some voices agree that judges should be elected for a determined period, so people could evaluate if they did a good during their tenure.
However, in both cases, some advantages and disadvantages have to be resolved by law experts and politicians in their respective states.
Im from malaysia. Saw ur vids on tiktok
Https://gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/road-revolution/resources/paul-revere%E2%80%99s-engraving-b...
everything you need is here
Answer:
Option D.
Explanation:
Their defeat and destruction of the Hebrew twelve tribes, is the right answer.
The Phoenicia Civilization was a Mediterranean civilization that flourished in the Levant, in particular, Lebanon. This culture disseminated everywhere the Mediterranean in the years between 1500 BC and 300 BC. The people of this civilization who were known as the Phoenicians were associated with many skills such as shipbuilding and sailing skills and producing purple dye etc. Moreover, they were actively involved in trading activities and became rich from commerce.
