Answer:
In a well-regulated democracy, men give authority to leaders but are equal to them
Explanation:
According to the given passage, the author states that in a well-regulated democracy, people give authority to certain people to become leaders, such as magistrates, senators, judges, etc, but those same men are also equal to the men who gave them such authority.
Therefore, the statement that best summarizes the passage is "In a well-regulated democracy, men give authority to leaders but are equal to them"
The above question seeks to analyze your writing ability and your perception of the Indian Removal Act. For this reason, it is not correct for me to write this letter to you, but I will show you how to write it.
First of all, you should know that the Indian Removal Act was established to remove Native Americans from the lands where they lived and forcibly place them on government-selected Indian reservations.
Although many people believe this was a good decision to protect the natives from the settlers' ambition. Others claim that this decision was abusive, that forced the displacement of the natives from their lands, and placed them in inferior lands. The natives, in turn, do not think that this decision was correct and fair.
You must research this law and determine your opinion of it, that is, you must determine whether this law was a good or bad decision.
After that, you can write your letter as follows:
- Start with a greeting to the person who will read your letter. This greeting can be "Dear Mr/Mrs ____" if you know the reader's name, or "Whom it may concern," if you don't know the reader's name.
- Then introduce yourself and show why you are writing the letter.
- Present your opinion on the Indian Removal Act, highlighting the reasons that made you build this opinion.
- Show if you think the results of the Indian Removal Act are positive or negative.
- End the letter by summarizing your arguments.
- Say goodbye cordially.
You can get more information about the Indian Removal Act at this link:
brainly.com/question/2035986
So they ain't have to pick there own cotton. And do there own dishes. So they can whip em when there mad. So they can
[email protected] a black woman when felt like it.
Hope this helps
Explanation:
Law does not function in vacuum. Law operates for and in the society; and it is influenced by the mores and attitudes of the society. Correspondingly, law is an instrument of social change. The law thus never can be static; it has to change constantly with the changes in the society. Judiciary plays a major role for this change since judges interpret and redefine the laws through their judicial decisions. The demands of the time and society become prominent factors for judge in the law interpretation process. Their judicial opinions consequently become precedents - 'settled' or 'established' law that can provide legal foundation for settling subsequent cases. Hence, those who are associated in the field of law have to read case judgments for their research or academic purposes.
Mere knowledge of legal rules is not enough to do research in law. It also needs the analytical skills to extract ratio, observation and to apply these principles in different factual situations. This paper endeavors to identify certain parameters, which by no means are exhaustive but are only enabling points which could help a researcher to read and understand the judicial opinion. To achieve the very purposes of reading, the yardstick is not mere the ability to read, but to comprehend very essence of what is written.
The author believes that when a judgment is written well with clarity and consistency, even a common man would be able to figure out the contours of law. Since the objective of any judgment or judicial opinion is justice, the judge's conveying skill and the reader's skill ought to converge upon a common end.
