Answer:
False
Explanation:
Eight (8) most populous countries in the word
1. China 1,439,323,776
2. India 1,380,004,385
3. United States 331,002,651
4. Indonesia 273,523,615
5. Pakistan 220,892,340
6. Brazil 212,559,417
7. Nigeria 206,139,589
8. Bangladesh 164,689,383
Total population of the 8 countries =4,228,135,156
Total world population= 7,794,798,739
Percentage of the 8 most populous countries= total population of the 8 most populous countries/ total world population × 100
=4,228,135,156/7,794,798,739×100
=0.54243031765 × 100
=54.243031765%
Approximately 54%
The statement that best expresses <em>Ibn battuta’s</em> point of view in this passage is that the ruler of Mali is both rich and powerful. His final journey took him to Mali, a Muslim empire in West Africa which was 1000 miles South of Morocco across the Sahara Desert. In 1352, <em>Ibn Battuta</em> joined a desert caravan on his last great adventure headed for Mali that was known for its gold and great wealth. Mali's peak of power and wealth witnessed under <em>Mansa Musa</em>, and his successor, <em>Mansa Sulayman</em> whom<em> Ibn Battuta</em> met on his journey whom he described as rich and powerful.
I would say Narrow mindedly
Answer:
Anglo-Americans never considerate themselves as part of the Mexican government.
Explanation:
Texas settled by Mexican farmers and ranchers after it got independence from Spanish colonial power in 1821. Settlers began farming and ranching in Texas as the land was available at a reasonable price. Settlers in Texas dealt with buying land and raising cattle and livestock. The Mexican government invited Anglo-Americans for the development of regions as it remains unoccupied. Anglo- Americans migrated to Texas in the 1820s to get cheap farmland. They always saw themselves as part of America even though they received land and rights in Texas under the Mexican government. They resented Mexican laws and never adopted any Mexican identity while living in Mexican territory as they always saw Mexicans was contradictory and thought them as shallow and lazy.
My position on the use of presidential pardon authority is of favourability; because this was granted by the Constitution which represents the Americans desires and philosophy of how the govern should act for the citizens and states interests and dreams.
Pardons tend to be controversial because as they overlay justice decisions the President can use the pardon and offer it for a person in the purpose of fulfilling, or attend his own interest or causes. Taking advantage of pardon for personal benefits.
One actual example of a president’s use of his pardon authority was the pardon granted for Former President Richard Nixon by President Gerald Ford on September 8, 1974 regarding any crimes he could have done in Watergate Scandal.
The pardon legally relates to punishment effects for a crime (if it is offered before a conviction it prevents the penalties and disabilities and if it is after a conviction it removes them).
The emotional issues that those most personally affected by the original crime may have toward the granting of a pardon can be vary.
In the case of Nixon critics claimed the pardon to be a “corrupt bargain” and later this seems to be the cause of peoples rejection of Ford and reason of the President losing the elections of 1976. While for Nixon was a great relive and an import act this pardon Ford gave him.
