The correct answer to this open question is the following.
In the case of Chiafalo v. Washington (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for states to place restrictions on who electors can vote for.
I agree with this decision because voting in the Electoral College is a serious thing, and members of the college have to assume this important and serious role. That is why they are members of the Electoral College and expressed their intention to vote for the candidate they supported.
I think there would be no room for faithless electors in the US Electoral College. There is no reason for them to vote for other people if they originally pledge to vote for their candidates.
On July 6, 2020, the case of Chiafalo v. Washington was decided.
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
I have respect for well-meaning people who say, “it’s never right to kill.” The pacifist is a person of great bravery—but also naivety. Maybe they have had the good fortune of never experiencing anything that has forced them to question their belief. Clearly, they have never faced a force-on-force encounter, otherwise their moral stance would have resulted in them being dead.
Killing for domination, and ultimately for survival, is partly the reason why we are so successful as a species. Killing each other is part of the human experience and history has shown that mankind has always had a fascination with it.
Roman gladiatorial combat was barbaric, but it fulfilled a societal need. That need is still with us. According to US research, the average 18-year-old teenage boy has been subjected to approximately 22,000 killings of their fellow human beings on film, television and computer games. Death and combat have long been viewed as a form of entertainment. But killing is not just about people destroying each other. It can solve problems.
Would the Haitian slave rebellion of 1781 have been successful if the slaves had decided to join together as a union to demand freedom? Would their peaceful threats to withdraw their labour from the sugar cane fields unless their French owners gave in to their demands have been successful? I think not. The rebellion would have failed and even more slaves would have been killed. It would have been the only way the French could have solved the problem. We celebrate the slaves’ success now with the benefit of hindsight and regard the event as the start of abolition. Much like the fight against Hitler and fascism, the only way to win is to match the force and violence we face.
As the quote often attributed to Winston Churchill says: “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.”
Gettysburg had the highest casualties in history until a world war. Gettysburg is the answer
Answer:
The law that allowed Theodore Roosevelt to set aside federal land for conservation is the<u> Conservation Act</u> (C).
Explanation:
Roosevelt is know for setting aside more federal land for national parks than any of his predecessors combined. The act that allowed him to do this was the <u>Conservation Act.</u> He also established the United States Forest Service, signed into law the creation of five national parks, and signed the year 1906 Antiquities Act, under which he proclaimed 18 new national monuments.
Note: I wasn't able to find something specific called the National Park Bill and the other Acts were from other presidencies.
Hey there Alyssa!
(I'M SO SMART, I DO NEED OPTION D.) HAHA)
Your correct answer would be (<span>to profit from the fur trade). This was something that they really wanted to get involved with
Hope this helps you!</span>
