Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
Explanation:
Anti-Federalism was a late-18th century movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. The previous constitution, called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, gave state governments more authority. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, Anti-Federalists worried, among other things, that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy. Though the Constitution was ratified and supplanted the Articles of Confederation, Anti-Federalist influence helped lead to the passage of the United States Bill of Rights.
One of the main reasons why Congress did not initially annex Texas is because it would create an imbalance of free and slave states in Congress.
During the early to mid 19th century, the United States was constantly expanding their territory. This was due in large part to the concept of manifest destiny. As the US was spreading their influence, they ran into the problem of whether or not these new territories and states would have the institution of slavery.
Southern states favored new territories and states having slavery while Northern states did not favor slavery in these new territories. The reason behind the Northern states includeds:
1) Influences from the abolitionist movement.
2) Northerners did not want slave states to have more representatives in Congress than they did.
This caused Texas annexation to be delayed, since Texas would be admitted as a slave state. This would throw off the balance of free and slave states represented in Congress, giving slave states the advantage.
This passage is about the speech of President Jackson in Congress, where he defended the process of remorse of the Indians.
The use of the word "progessive" refers to the continuation of a process begun earlier, where the Indians were massacred and expelled from their territories to the detriment of the white man's civilization. The former president used that term as a way to slow down an attitude that today would be understood as barbarism, but one that is part of US history.
Answer:Como las otras sociedades Jê que habitan en el sector central de Brasil, los Apinajé tienen en común una sofisticada organización social compuesta por varios sistemas de mitades ceremoniales y grupos rituales, así como aldeas relativamente populosas.
Explanation:
