Answer:
a. 1/3
Explanation:
Although, this is a controversial topic and it is hard to state exactly how much income share the top 1% or how much of the United State's wealth rests with the wealthiest top 1% but, it can be said that approximately one-third (1/3) of the wealth remains with the top 1%. Also, some of the sources like Washington Post suggests that up to 40% of the wealth rests with the US top 1% households. Hence, given the options, 1/3 is most suitable.
Answer:
America's role in foreign
The industrial growth
Population growth
Explanation:
The country built up its military strength and became a world power.
Answer:
A:3, B:1, C:2
Explanation:
1. Concurrent jurisdiction: Cases involving state and federal questions and cases.
2. Exclusive state jurisdiction: Cases involving all matters not subject to federal jurisdiction.
3. Exclusive federal jurisdiction: Cases involving federal crimes, bankruptcy, patents, copyrights, trademarks, and suits against the United States.
Concurrent jurisdiction arises in cases which can be heard in more than one court, it allows more than one court the authority to hear a case, for example divorce cases can be heard in a local district level court, a family court or any one of the district courts
Federal jurisdiction arise in cases involving federal crimes, bankruptcy, patents, copyrights, trademarks, and suits against the United States.
Exclusive state jurisdiction arises in cases not subject to federal laws but state laws
Answer:
Monticello contains columns, porticoes, and domes used in Roman architecture.
Answer:Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the convention center where the 1984 Republican National Convention was being held in Dallas, Texas. Johnson burned the flag to protest the policies of President Ronald Reagan. He was arrested and charged with violating a Texas statute that prevented the desecration of a venerated object, including the American flag, if such action were likely to incite anger in others. A Texas court tried and convicted Johnson. He appealed, arguing that his actions were "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.
Issue
Whether flag burning constitutes "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment.
Ruling
Yes.
Explanation:
here is your answer let me know if you got it right if you
did just say thanks in rate this