Anti-Federalists were against the Constitution, so I'm fairly certain that the rest of that statement goes:
According to the Anti-Federalists, a governing document such as the Constitution should most certainly fail to protect the rights of individuals and the states.
That's the most I've got with how much you gave, I'll probably need specific choices to choose from for a more satisfying and accurate answer.
In the cartoon above, the men represent the Nativists group that called for limiting immigration.
The political strategy of promoting or defending the interests of native or indigenous residents above those of immigrants, especially the backing of immigration-restrictive laws, is known as nativism.
People in nativist groups sought to stop immigration. Their campaign was directed at those groups that might alter the course of established American culture.
The most frequently cited justification for immigration limits is the need to shield American workers from poverty. The mechanism is straightforward: Without these rules, the labor supply would significantly expand, resulting in a sharp decline in American wages to Third World levels.
Because the majority of Americans supported nativism, limitations on immigration were also popular.
To learn more about immigration refer to:
brainly.com/question/13688875
#SPJ9
I’m not sure what “the two crown” is, but if you mean the double crown, it’s what pharaohs of the first dynasty would wear.
The Double Crown symbolizes the joining of Lower and Upper Egypt, and the pharaoh’s control over both lands.
I’m not sure if this is the answer you were looking for, but if you have another question abt it lmk :)
If you are a delegate, it means that you are a representative or supporter of it so if you support the state's constitution more than the country's, you are an anti-federalist because a federalist is someone who supports the states unified under one constitution so the opposite of that would be anti-federalist. So the answer is anti-federalist.
Answer:
The first phase of European colonisation of Southeast Asia took place throughout the 16th and 17th centuries after the arrival of Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish and later French and British marine spice traders. Fiercely competitive, the Europeans soon sought to eliminate each other by forcibly taking control of the production centers, trade hubs and vital strategic locations, beginning with the Portuguese acquisition of Malacca in 1511. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries conquests focused on ports along the maritime routes, that provided a secure passage of maritime trade. It also allowed foreign rulers to levy taxes and control prices of the highly desired Southeast Asian commodities.[1] By the 19th century, virtually all Southeast Asian lands had been forced into the various spheres of influence of European global players. Siam, which had served as a convenient buffer state, sandwiched between British Burma and French Indochina was the only country to avoid direct foreign rule. However, its kings had to contend with repeated humiliations, accept unequal treaties among massive British and French political interference and territorial losses after the Franco-Siamese War in 1893 and the Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909.
Explanation:
i didnt feel like typing soooo sorry if this is wrong
