The way that Judaism was used to assert political authority and/or reinforce social hierarchies was by intermingling the roles of religious leaders with political authority.
<h3>How was Judaism used to control politics?</h3>
Judaism was not just a belief system for the Jews that guided their religious life, it also guided their political life.
This is because the religious leaders in Judaism also had political authority. For instance, the King or Judge was someone who was appointed by God and so could speak to God.
This led to political authority being asserted with greater ease, and for social hierarchy to be maintained.
Find out more on Judaism at brainly.com/question/729391
#SPJ1
Answer:
They were women who worked toward winning women the right to vote.
Explanation:
A suffragette is described as an activist who fought hard to protect the rights of women to vote in elections.
Therefore, the statement that describes the suffragettes from Louisiana at the Turn of the Century is that they were women who worked toward winning women the right to vote.
The Supreme Court case that upheld the right to counsel for defendants in criminal cases was Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Hence, the correct statement is option C.
<h3>What happened in the case of Wainwright and Arizona?</h3>
In this case, the Supreme Court declared that the Fourteenth Amendment creates a right for criminal defendants who cannot pay for their own lawyers to have state-appointed attorneys on their behalf.
The missing information is given below:
A. Baker v. Carr (1962) and Engel v. Vitale (1962)
B. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) and Roe v. Wade (1973)
C. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
D. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)
Hence, The Supreme Court case that upheld the right to counsel for defendants in criminal cases was Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966). the correct statement is option C.
learn more about case of Wainwright and Arizona:
brainly.com/question/10320938
#SPJ1
Essentially it said that affirmative action does not violate the Constitution and that racial quotas are necessary to prevent discrimination.
Answer: It denied Congress the power to tax Southern exports, including agricultural products.
Explanation:
The economy of the Southern states was heavily dependent on cheap exports of agricultural products, and when Northern states wanted to introduce a tariff on exports, Southern states fervently opposed the measure. The Compromise was settled with the introduction of tariffs on imports from foreign countries, since the North wanted to encourage the purchase of manufactured products from Northern factories but with no tariffs on exports of any kind, including agricultural products, which beneffited the South.
