Answer:
No, I don’t think the Brown court would have said that people could be separated by race on a train. Brown fought against segregation in schools because it was unconstitutional and violated the 14th Amendment. I can’t see why they would agree with segregation in other institutions.
The Plessy case, which occurred quite a bit earlier than the Brown case, ruled that segregation was okay as long as it was “separate but equal.” If it was Plessy v. Brown, Brown could have made the argument that “If it has to be separate, it’s not truly equal.” There’s no reason to divide the people unless there’s unfair treatment involved.
I think the correct answer from the choices listed above is option C. The <span>congressional process that is being described would be its oversight function. Hope this answers the question. Have a nice day. Feel free to ask more questions.</span>
It could be argued that the interim revolutionary government in Russia in 1917 claimed to be democratic, but it did not have popular support because "<span>it was a compromise government made up of many parties with many views, pleasing everyone a little, but satisfying no one," since it's main objective was to "please the masses". </span>
Answer:airpower made killing mechanical and not personal
Explanation:
The new planes made it harder for ground forces to move to a new line because they could now down a line with missiles or Machine gun fire
Answer:
A mafia boss
Explanation:
during the era of prohibition the mafia was the citizens only hope of bringing back illegal booze, the mafia hijacked booze, whiskey, and alcohol trucks to sell
