A strict constructionist attempts to interpret the law based on the words of the law itself, while a loose constructionist applies a more liberal reading to the text.<span> The debate between strict and loose construction of the United States Constitution has been a feature of the republic's history since the very beginning.</span><span>
</span>
Let's begin by defining what a leader is. A leader is someone who supports his/her subordinates in all possible way so followers can be engaged to the goals. Now, there are positive and dangerous leaders. These are three ways both kinds of leaders use their leadership to achieve different goals:
1) They use their authority to impose their point of view regardless of what others think. This is dangerous.
2) They know their influence to get know their team in all aspects. He is very well aware of their team's weaknesses and strengths. Therefore, he will make educated decisions on assigning tasks to achieve their goals. This is positive.
3) They are willing and determined to destroy others who may be on their way just to get what they want. When I say destroy, I mean they might undermine someone's integrity to get rid of him/her.
Now, dangerous leaders do have their own goals. Most of the time, such goals are connected to their own interests. Thus, this dangerous leader will try to do anything to achieve them. For examples, they might badmouth others, make up toxic stories about colleagues. They could even damage the team whole image and blame on them just to get what they want.
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Them being on an island isolated them from eurasia and they were left relatively untouched. Even the mongols couldnt reach them. As a result, they developed a distinct culture
When Jefferson died in 1826, the nation stood on the threshold of a stupendous transformation. During the ensuing quarter century it expanded enormously in space and population. Commerce flourished and so did agriculture. The age witnessed the rise of the common man with the right to vote and hold office. It was a time of overflowing optimism, of dreams of perpetual progress, moral uplift, and social betterment. Such was the climate that engendered the common school. Open freely to every child and upheld by public funds, it was to be a lay institution under the sovereignty of the state, the archetype of the present-day American public school. Bringing the common school into being was not easy. Against it bulked the doctrine that any education that excluded religious instruction—as all state-maintained schools were legally compelled to do—was godless. Nor had there been any great recession of the contention that education was not a proper governmental function and for a state to engage there was an intrusion into parental privilege. Even worse was the fact that public schooling would occasionally rise in taxes.
HOPE THIS HELPS <33333
-Silver
