Answer:
'Their diet was mainly meat and wild animals.' Hunter Gatherers
'They owned land and property' Farmers
'They depended in domesticated plants and animals for food.' Farmers
'They did not own many things.' Hunter Gatherers
Explanation:
1. Farmers would live off of domesticated animals, not wild.
2. Hunter Gatherers had to gather things, so they most likely wouldn't stay in one place for long. And farmers need land to farm.
3. Farmers tend to not hunt, but keep lifestock.
4. Like what I said about two, they had to go hunt for their food, and owning a bunch of idioms would make on the go trips slow and weigh the person down.
The reason I believe Senator Smith uses language like stock, natural increase, breeds, pure, etc. is because she wants to buttress the point and she sees it as the only natural way to think is to put the verb that will passage the message of something that is not contaminated.
<h3>What does his use of these words tell you about the criteria by which he Judges others?</h3>
It tells me that He is a person who believes in the purity, truthfulness and credibility and we not succumb to the truth being tinted.
Senator Christine Elizabeth Smith is known to be a popular American politician and she is known to be a retired Democratic political consultant.
She was known to have serves as a United States senator from Minnesota and this has been since 2018 and she is known to be a member of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party.
Therefore, The reason I believe Senator Smith uses language like stock, natural increase, breeds, pure, etc. is because she wants to buttress the point and she sees it as the only natural way to think is to put the verb that will passage the message of something that is not contaminated.
Learn more about Senator Smith from
brainly.com/question/26690484
#SPJ1
Answer:
it was colonized by english settlers in the early 17th century
Explanation:
B, there are 12 regional circuits in the United States, which hear cases on appeal from the district courts.
The political myth of the Magna Carta and its protection of the old personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 well into the nineteenth century. It influenced the first American settlers in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the US Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the territories in the new republic of the United States. Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 letter concerned the medieval relationship between the English monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but that letter remained a powerful and iconic document, even after almost all its content was repealed from the statutes of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Magna Carta is still an important symbol of freedom, it is frequently cited by politicians and activists and is respected by the British and American legal communities.
When the English settlers left for the New World, they took with them royal letters with which they established the colonies. For example, the letter from the Massachusetts Bay Company stated that settlers "would have and enjoy the freedoms and immunities of free and natural subjects" .216 The Virginia Charter of 1606 - largely written by Edward Coke - he declared that the settlers would have the same "liberties, right to vote and immunities" as those born in England.217 The Massachusetts Body of Liberties contained similarities with clause 29 of the Magna Carta; in drafting it, the Massachusetts General Court considered the letter to be the main incarnation of English customary law.218 Other colonies would follow its example. In 1638, Maryland tried to recognize the Magna Carta as part of the law of the province, but the request was denied by Carlos I.
