Answer:
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette
Explanation:
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school.
Answer:
B) He was fearful of driving away the traders who contributed to Japan's economy.
Explanation:
Tokugawa Ieyasu was a military ruler also know as shogun that ruled Japan during the early 1600s.
Before his reign as Shogun, in 1549, Christian missionaries can to Japan with the aim of converting the Japanese people to Christianity. They also came with muskets, guns and other European goods which the Japanese people had interest and wanted the buy.
Over the years the Missionaries trade expanded and they became very successful, they also involved themselves in the politics of Japan.
Tokugawa Ieyasu, seeing this he became worried, he saw the European missionaries as threats because of their involvement in Japan politics. He felt they caused trouble and were putting down the traditional beliefs of Japan but he could not send them away due to the European goods they sold to the Japanese people.
In the year 1612,Tokugawa Ieyasu became frightened and afraid of religious rebellion in Japan and he forbade Christianity in Japan.
Answer:
1. If Earth's gravity was just 5% stronger, the increase would warp our planet's near-perfect circlular orbit into a tighter elliptical path. Summers and winters would become a lot harsher, the intense climate change would spark widespread famine and would likely collapse the world economy.
Explanation:
That's the only one I know
Mr. Justice Jackson, dissenting. . . .
Much is said of the danger to liberty from the Army program for deporting and detaining these citizens of Japanese extraction. But a judicial construction of the due process clause that will sustain this order is a far more subtle blow to liberty than the promulgation of the order itself. A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency. Even during that period a succeeding commander may revoke it all. But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. . . . A military commander may overstep the bounds of constitutionality, and it is an incident. But if we review and approve, that passing incident becomes the doctrine of the Constitution. There it has a generative power of its own, and all that it creates will be in its own image. Nothing better illustrates this danger than does the Court’s opinion in this case. . . .
yes i copy and pasted but this is your answer
