This is in my opinion one of the aspects that makes the central courts and the different lines of thought within a single subject so interesting. The clash of ideas that we have in this case is a perfect example.
On one side we have those who look at the current 30 million uninsured Americans, which include millions in Texas, and the undeniable success it had in Massachusetts. Most of them conclude that this mandate is a government success.
On the other hand, we can find those who believe that this is a terrible invasion of the government to the citizen's free will to choose their own healthcare options, they see government overreach, and at the same time an unprecedented intrusion on individual liberties to which there is no justification.
Unfortunately this is something that millions of Americans have been forced into. It's evident how they refused to create a public health care system, and instead give more power to the private sector.
After this short debate of ideas, I will give you one question to ponder on: Which principle is more important? Your freedom, your civil liberties, and your freedom from the government line of thought, or the possibilty of providing health care to millions of uninsured Americans?
I hope this solves your question!
The project D. Building the Transcontinental I believe is the one that led to the creation of a system of time zones across America
I would say the answer is three (not 100% sure tho). It's definitely not 2 or 1
Answer:
he was tried twice for the same crime.
Explanation:
Double jeopardy clause occurs when a person is put on trial for an offense of which he has already been put on trial before. United States Constitution, states that no <em><u>"person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."</u></em>
This can only apply if the accused has already gotten a valid acquittal from a law court or conviction within the same jurisdiction. If this occurs, then the government or prosecutor cannot retry the accused/defendant.
Therefore, Frank Palko believed that double jeopardy would apply in his case because he was tried twice for the same crime.
The United States’ approach to foreign policy had not change conceptually from the days it signed its independence. These ideas were primarily based on protecting US interests overseas and restricting foreign influences in the Americas. Once they furthered themselves politically and
economically, they gained the status of being a world power and they still wanted more. They figured they had to strengthen the country industrially as they needed worldwide markets for its growing industrial and agricultural
surpluses as well as sources of raw materials for manufacturing. They could only achieve these foreign markets with more concentrated efforts on its foreign policy as America was principally guided by economic motives.
The internal economic growth of the United States made them want to look outward for foreign markets. Export earnings increased from 450 million to over a billion from 1870 to the early 1890’s. US business’s were soon
overpowering foreign competition as even American steelmakers could easily compete with any British producer in the world. Everything seemed to be inciting the US to expand abroad. Expansionists throughout America emphasized the resources of what other lands could provide and the wealth that could result from their establishment. For example, Cuba offered an abundance of sugar
plantations and land in Panama would offer America control of the canal.
The economic benefits of a foreign land can be seen through an example of Americans exploring the distant islands of Hawaii. During the course of the early 1800s, missionaries from America traversed on a laborious voyage to Hawaii and ended up settling there. They offered accounts of incredible economic opportunities and possibilities in the Hawaiian islands. Consequently, other Americans proceeded to Hawaii to become sugar planters and to establish lucrative businesses.
