There were numerous things. For starters, he could've resigned and showed that he doesn't plan to become a dictator. In addition, Romans were all about outward appearance and social status and much of Caesar's behavior towards the high ranking senate members was humiliating to them so they naturally loathed him. He could've given them more respect in order to gain their support.
The appropriate response is Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). In Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Court ruled unlawful a college's utilization of racial "standards" in its confirmations procedure however held that governmental policy regarding minorities in society projects could be protected in a few conditions.
Answer: The correct answer is C.
Explanation:
It is a divide that separates waters that flow into the Atlantic Ocean from those that flow into the Pacific Ocean. Therefor, the answer would be C.
* Hopefully this helps:) Mark me the brainliest:)!!
<em>∞ 234483279c20∞</em>
Answer:
I believe it to be economic investment.
Answer:
Hi !
Here is your answer !
The Seventh Amendment has two clauses. The first, known as the Preservation Clause, provides: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved This clause sets out the types of cases juries are required to decide. The second clause, known as the Re examination Clause, declares: “no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” This clause prevents federal judges from overturning jury verdicts in certain ways.
Explanation:
In interpreting the Seventh Amendment, judges soon encountered a problem. To which “common law” courts was the Amendment referring? The states had different civil jury practices, and the federal courts were new. The United States Supreme Court announced a solution. The term “common law” in the Seventh Amendment meant the common law of England. Parsons v. Bedford (1830). A century later, the Supreme Court formally declared that the Amendment was to be interpreted according to the common law of England at the time the Amendment was ratified, that is, in 1791. Dimick v. Schiedt (1935).
Thank You !
