Answer:
Push: Poverty, religious/political persecution, economic opportunities scarce in homeland. Pull: Available jobs, improvement on the conditions of their homeland.
I hope this helped ☺️
Based on this passage and what you have learned about the states, the states were unwilling to voluntarily work together in a confederation because each state had its own interests and needs.
Each state was in favor of proceeding their own interests and needs they believed that focusing on their needs would be a much better option in the long run. Unity wasn’t a wide practice during that era too.
Answer:
B. It increased federal authority by invoking the doctrine of implied powers.
Explanation:
McCulloch v. Maryland was a litigation or court case between the national bank known as The Second Bank of the United States and the state of Maryland with respect to the tax that was imposed on it by the state.
Basically, the state of Maryland passed a legislation to impose taxes on banknotes ($15,000 annually) of any bank that isn't chartered in the state of Maryland.
However, James W. McCulloch who was head at the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank objected and refused to pay the tax. Consequently, the appellate court of Maryland ruled that the Second Bank was established unconstitutionally because the federal government isn't provided a textual commitment by the constitution to charter a bank.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Marshall ruled that the Federal government of USA has certain implied powers accorded or given to it by the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution but aren't explicitly stated therein.
<em>Hence, the statement which is true of John Marshall's decision in McCulloch v. Maryland is that, it increased federal authority by invoking the doctrine of implied powers.</em>
Pros: Gave more jobs to people
Production of goods
People had access to cheaper goods and better education
Cons: bad quality working condition
Pollution
Overpopulation
You can't really justify anything but dramatic irony.
It isn't foreshadowing. She is genuinely weeping and it has nothing to do with future events
There is no allusion in this. Her crying is not symbolic. Nor does it refer back to anything
An oxymoron is a contradiction that seems false or unrelated but isn't. Her weeping is genuine. You might be able to make a case for this but dramatic irony is much better: Juliet's mother thinks one thing, the audience knows another.
