Correct answer:
<h2>Limited government</h2>
The 10th Amendment puts limits on the powers of the federal government. It reserves powers for the states (and for the people themselves) any powers not specifically designated to the federal government in the United States Constitution. Any laws and powers exercised by the states still must be in accord with what is stated in the US Constitution, however.
For some historical context, we might also consider that the original framers of the US Constitution thoughts that statements such as the 10th Amendment -- and all of the first 10 Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights -- were already inherent in the Constitution as it was written. They had composed a constitution that intentionally placed limits on the federal government. So, stating such a limit in an amendment seemed like a repetition of what was already apparent in the Constitution itself. As noted by the National Constitution Center, "The Constitution’s Framers thought that a bill of rights was appropriate for an unlimited government, but not for a limited one like the national government created by the Constitution. The Constitution accordingly sought to secure liberty through enumerations of powers to the government rather than through enumerations of rights to the people."
Nevertheless, to assure those who wanted the rights of the people specifically listed and protected, Amendments 1 through 10 were added to the Constitution as a Bill of Rights to affirm those protections.
Answer:
Irrespective of its genuine strategic objectives or its complex historical consequences, the campaign in Palestine during the first world war was seen by the British government as an invaluable exercise in propaganda. Keen to capitalize on the romantic appeal of victory in the Holy Land, British propagandists repeatedly alluded to Richard Coeur de Lion's failure to win Jerusalem, thus generating the widely disseminated image of the 1917-18 Palestine campaign as the 'Last' or the 'New' Crusade. This representation, in turn, with its anti-Moslem overtones, introduced complicated problems for the British propaganda apparatus, to the point (demonstrated here through an array of official documentation, press accounts and popular works) of becoming enmeshed in a hopeless web of contradictory directives. This article argues that the ambiguity underlying the representation of the Palestine campaign in British wartime propaganda was not a coincidence, but rather an inevitable result of the complex, often incompatible, historical and religious images associated with this particular front. By exploring the cultural currency of the Crusading motif and its multiple significations, the article suggests that the almost instinctive evocation of the Crusade in this context exposed inherent faultlines and tensions which normally remained obscured within the self-assured ethos of imperial order. This applied not only to the relationship between Britain and its Moslem subjects abroad, but also to rifts within metropolitan British society, where the resonance of the Crusading theme depended on class position, thus vitiating its projected propagandistic effects even among the British soldiers themselves.
Explanation:
Answer: December 25, 1991. It ceased to exist 12/31/91
Explanation:
Can you actually put the "descriptions" in your question next time best one i can give you is the north was <span>industrial, urban, and anti-slavery</span>
