Answer:
Many people of the public helped toward the civil rights act. King jr. was a very impactful person on this law of 1875
Explanation:
Answer:
Dendrochronologists study tree rings to learn about past climates. Trees in temperate areas form one growth ring per year. Scientists can look at the rings and identify climate conditions during each year of the tree’s life. Scientists found long droughts in both the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. This is the same period when the Anasazi were leaving Chaco Canyon. Under normal conditions it was hard to support their villages in the harsh environment of northern New Mexico. When years of drought occurred, the densely populated Anasazi pueblos could no longer raise enough food. Other forces could have pushed the Anasazi away from Chaco as well.
Explanation:
I'm guessing that they fought against forces, like the people trying to steal land so they could have enough space to live, farm, and hunt.
I also think that the Native American could have traded or given valuable items to the people who were trying to take their land in exchange for the Natives to keep their land.
The most important attitude of the Puritans and John Winthrop for liberty was the Natural and the Moral liberty. Where Natural liberty included the ability to do whatever an individual wants to do , good or evil. And the Moral liberty comprised of the ability to do good. The moral liberty guides men to do good rather than evil. John Winthrop( the founder of the Bay Colony) was liable to preserve the social and political system for a very large group of People, as he became the first Governor of the Bay of Massachusetts.
He had close contacts with leading Puritan Leaders, including the Ministers of the Church and John Cotton. Winthrop and Puritans together wanted to reform the Churches of England by proposing it to a new form of Devotion.
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:
