PLEASE HELP ASAP 30 POINTS!!

History

1 answer:

pashok25 [27]3 years ago

8 0

1. the state is straying from the united states (at the time)
2. the state is removing itself from the past n burning its alliegience/ties to the United States
3. the state is its own and will do what it what it wants as a fully functional independant country
4 A independent country with its own power n will

You might be interested in

How do you think Germans felt in the postwar years? Check any boxes that you agree with.

chubhunter [2.5K]

Answer:

There are no boxes to check

Explanation:

6 0

3 years ago

Can you guys give me some compare and contrasts in ancient rome and ancient greece for culture, environment , and religion

alexgriva [62]

Answer:

I'm not good at Ancient rome and ancient greece but I can try.

Explanation:

The Greeks wanted perfection in their depiction of people. The Romans want real life people. The Greek civilization was a collection of city-states, and were not united under one central government until they were conquered by Alexander the Great.

Hope this helps!

7 0

3 years ago

How can nationalism help and hurt people?

Tom [10]

Direct causality can be drawn between nationalism and war. ... Nationalist groups within a state who desire their own independent state, (one organised to include their ethnic or cultural identity, for example), may conduct regular or irregular warfare in order to forcibly persuade a state to grant them independence

8 0

3 years ago

Suppose you had lived during the time period of the 1828 election. Would you have voted for Andrew Jackson?

drek231 [11]

Answer:

If you had voted for Andrew Jackson for the Presidency during this time, it is likely that you were a "common person," such as a farmer, since this was the demographic that Jackson tried to appeal to.

Explanation:

3 0

3 years ago

Wyzanski argues the principle against ex post facto laws is essential for Rule Of Law (otherwise, it merely becomes Rule of Man)

diamong [38]

Answer:

Explanation:

The United States Constitution prohibits legislative bills of attainder. Which is indicated in federal law under Article I, Section 9, and in state law under Article I, Section 10. Being banned under state law reflects the significance that the framers are connected to this issue.

The clauses that are prohibiting attainder laws serve two purposes within the U.S. Constitution. They strengthened the separation of powers by means of prohibiting the legislature to execute judicial or executive functions, because the result of any such acts of legislature would take the form of a bill of attainder. Additionally, they incorporate the conceptualization of due process, that was relatively reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 states that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed". Moreover, the constitution of every state clearly progibits bills of attainder as well. For instance, the Wisconsin's constitution under Article I, Section 12 states that, “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.” On the contrary, the Texas version under Article 1 (Titled Bill of Rights) Section 16, entitled Bills of Attainder; Ex Post Facto or Retroactive Laws, Impairing Obligation of Contracts states that, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made". It is not clear though whether a contract that calls for heirs to be denied of their estate is permitted under this law.

7 0

3 years ago