He learned that the winds would make the boat move straight.
In the battle of Fredericksberg, there were a total of 17,730 casualties.
Answer:
The smaller population states have more power by using the Electoral College than they would otherwise.
Explanation:
The Electoral College of the United States is made up of electors who elect the President and Vice President of the United States. The Constitution determines how many voters each state has; in practice, the number is the same as the total numebr of congressmen that each state has.
Voters do not directly elect the President and Vice President of the United States, but vote through the constituencies of their own state. Voters can, in principle, vote for any candidate, but in practice undertake to vote for a particular candidate, and thus voters know how to cast their vote through their constituents for their own candidate. This is an example of an indirect election method.
The smaller popularion states tend to support the electoral college more emphatically than the larger population states, since this voting mechanism implies an equalization in the proportion of votes by the smaller states with respect to the larger states. Otherwise, if it were the case of direct vote by citizens, four or five states could be decisive, leaving other citizens on a secondary level.
The Etruscans demonstrated engineering and construction skills to the Romans. The ancient Roman architecture was also strongly influenced.
Explanation:
Several of Roman society's most identifiable traits is influenced directly from the Etruscans.
The Etruscans played an important role in Rome, as they demonstrate in their faith, history, architectural design and engineering as well as helped establish this town as a major city and one of Italy's major powers.
The Etruscans ' influence on the Early Roman Republic must be known to understand Rome.
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:
