The correct answer to this open question is the following.
You forgot to include the painting and the options for this question. However, doing some research, we can say the following.
The most likely message this painting sends to French citizens is that "one must be prepared to sacrifice their own children to preserve France."
The painting describes the scene when Brutus, a Roman official, had to defend Rome against the rebels. Among those rebels were the Brutus's sons. So Brutus had to make a decision. To defend their own sons or fight to defend his own nation. Brutus chose the second one.
In the painting, we can see Brutus and family members mourning the death of the sons.
Answer:
That his administration was corrupt and presidency-poor.
Explanation:
The Teapot Dome Scandal of 1920 is considered the most heinous scandal, after the Watergate Scandal, in the history of the United States. The scandal revealed the black picture of the White House in the form of ornery oil tycoons, illegal liquor sales, a womanised President, poker-playing politicians, etc.
The mastermind behind the Albert Fall. In 1921, President Warren G. Harding, transferred the administration overseeing the naval petroleum reserves from the Navy to the Interior Department, that came under the administration of Fall.
Fall, then, began to illegally and secretly allow his two oil merchant friends to drill oil from the Teapot Dome.
This reveals that the Presidency of Harding was poor, and the people under his administration were highly corrupted.
Answer:
the employers
Explanation:
beacause they taken other employers or by the goverment
Abraham Lincoln's leadership was key to the North’s victory in the Civil War
Answer:
criminal investigation and court procedures
Explanation:
The common factor between the Mapp vs Ohio, Miranda vs Arizona and Gideon vs Wainwright was that they were all criminal investigation and court procedures.
In the Miranda vs Arizona case, the court ruled that the incriminating statements made by the accused were only admissible in court if the police informed the suspect of his Miranda rights first.
In the Mapp vs Ohio case, the court ruled that evidence obtained through violation of the Fourth Amendment which has to do with unlawful searches and seizures were not admissible in court.
During the Gideon vs Wainwright case, the court ruled that the states were bound by the Sixth Amendment to produce a lawyer for an accused if he cannot afford one.
