Answer:
And the January jobs numbers came out today. And while we are grateful for everyone who found work and is earning a paycheck, it is very clear our economy is still in trouble. We added just 6,000 private sector jobs in the country last month. Overall, we added 49,000 jobs. And this at a time when we have more than 10 million people out of work, 4 million people have been out of work for six months or longer, and 2.5 million women have been driven from the workforce. Fifteen million Americans are behind in their rental payments. Twenty-four million adults and twelve million children literally don’t have enough food to eat.
Answer:
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.
Explanation:
The 1831 Supreme Court case of the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was a court ruling between the Cherokee Nation, the petitioners, against the state of Georgia, the respondent.
In this court case, the Cherokees filed a complaint against the State of Georgia, asking if the state has any jurisdiction to impose laws on the Nation. This was because the state has promised Cherokee lands to Georgian settlers if they settle in the state. The court decided that since the Cherokees are a dependent nation, it cannot make any decision as it has no jurisdiction over the case. Thus, this means that the Cherokee Nation cannot have any legal recourse to stop the state from taking their lands. This case was then followed up by the 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling where the court ruled in favor of the Cherokee people.
Thus, the correct answer is Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.
Answer: The Third Answer
Explanation: He stated that the Government the Framers created was flawed, but not that it was unfixable or that it is still that way so it must be the 3rd answer. The first two answers are completely the opposite of the text.
Answer:
Rodney should win the case because he showed up to do the work but Yolanda failed to perform her part of the contract (provide the paint).
The legal term used to describe Rodney's offer of performance is tender or attempted performance. In this case, Rodney (the promisor) went to Yolanda's house and offered to perform his painting services. Yolanda (the promisee) did not perform her part of the contract by not providing the paint, so the promisor was unable to perform. Since Rodney's non-performance was directly caused by Yolanda's non-performance, he is not liable for anything since Yolanda lost her rights because she breached the contract first.
Answer:
The phrase 'Break the Law' means to fail to obey a law; to act contrary to a law. Derived from combining the words 'Hack' and 'Activism', hacktivism is the act of hacking, or breaking into a computer system, for politically or socially motivated purposes. The individual who performs an act of hacktivism is said to be a hacktivist. Which in all words saying should not be given a reward for breaking into something unless given the consent of the owners the owners may hire or ask them to help find a fault in there system but in other terms this should not happen.
