Answer:
a. The Equal Protection Clause is a clause from the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause provides that "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
Its purpose is to apply substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War. Hence, in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), Supreme Court held that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause while bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
While in the case of Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001), Supreme Court held that the State violated the Equal Protection Clause in drawing the 1997 boundaries was based on clearly erroneous findings.
b. In the case of Easley v. Cromartie, an appeal from the decision given in hunt v. Cromartie was filed in the supreme court of the United States by Easley. In hunt v. Cromartie, the court held that the legislature of North Carolina did not use the factor of race while drawing the boundaries in the twelfth congressional district,1992. It was held by the court that the legislature did not violate the equal protection clause of the constitution and no evidence to prove that legislature set its boundaries on a racial basis rather than a political basis.
In Easley v Cromartie the appeal was that drawing the boundaries for voting violated the equal protection clause of the constitution. The supreme court of the United States held that the decision of the district court is erroneous because it actually relied upon racial factors and this is not in the interest of the state.
In Shaw v. Reno the court concluded that the plan of North Carolina tried to segregate the voters on the basis of race.
<span> according to pleck, Pablo is experiencing: Roles strain
Roles strain refers to the stress that caused by not being able to feel someone's expectation to fulfill a certain role.
In this case, the stress come from the different pressure from both his wife who expect Pablo to fulfill the role as a sensitive person and society who expect Pablo to fulfill the role as the provider.</span>
Answer:
The King and the Duke are con artists by profession, illustrating Twain's belief that "nobles" are simply normal people who are able to convince others to respect them (usually through false pretenses) and to offer them money or other goods.
Explanation:
When Jesus reached the famous well at Shechem and asked a Samaritan woman for a drink, she replied full of surprise: "Jews do not associate with Samaritans” (John 4:9). In the ancient world, relations between Jews and Samaritans were indeed strained. Josephus reports a number of unpleasant events: Samaritans harass Jewish pilgrims traveling through Samaria between Galilee and Judea, Samaritans scatter human bones in the Jerusalem sanctuary, and Jews in turn burn down Samaritan villages. The very notion of “the good Samaritan” (Luke 10:25-37) only makes sense in a context in which Samaritans were viewed with suspicion and hostility by Jews in and around Jerusalem.
It is difficult to know when the enmity first arose in history—or for that matter, when Jews and Samaritans started seeing themselves (and each other) as separate communities. For at least some Jews during the Second Temple period, 2Kgs 17:24-41 may have explained Samaritan identity: they were descendants of pagan tribes settled by the Assyrians in the former <span>northern kingdom </span>of Israel, the region where most Samaritans live even today. But texts like this may not actually get us any closer to understanding the Samaritans’ historical origins.
The Samaritans, for their part, did not accept any scriptural texts beyond the Pentateuch. Scholars have known for a long time about an ancient and distinctly Samaritan version of the Pentateuch—which has been an important source for textual criticism of the Bible for centuries. In fact, a major indication for a growing Samaritan self-awareness in antiquity was the insertion of "typically Samaritan" additions into this version of the Pentateuch, such as a Decalogue commandment to build an altar on Mount Gerizim, which Samaritans viewed as the sole “place of blessing” (see also Deut 11:29, Deut 27:12). They fiercely rejected Jerusalem—which is not mentioned by name in the Pentateuch—and all Jerusalem-related traditions and institutions such as kingship and messianic eschatology.
