This is a opinion based answer but there is 3 main answers to this question one is yes they should be able to take their rights away because us having the freedom to do anything can be dangerous for the government second is no they shouldn’t just because we are going into war doesn’t give them the rights to take our freedoms away because it could cause more problems within the way and the third is no they shouldn’t be able too unless their given a valid reason to take their right and then give an example
I think it’s A. Increased air pollution.
Answer:
He led the NON-VIOLENT Indian independence movement.
Explanation:
The important achievement of Mohandas Gandhi is that "He led the NON-VIOLENT Indian independence movement."
Mohandas Gandhi whose full name is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was known to have done many things in support of humanity in terms of emancipation and freedom of the people. He later led the NON-VIOLENT Indian independence movement against British rule. He normally carries out his non-violent act by fasting, non-violent protest, and appealing to people
Answer: B. Americans could not speak out for one side or the other
Explanation:
Congressional proponents of neutrality legislation sought to prevent similar mistakes. The 1935 act banned munitions exports to belligerents and restricted American travel on belligerent ships. The 1936 act banned loans to belligerents. The 1937 act extended these provisions to civil wars and gave the president discretionary authority to restrict nonmunitions sales to a “cash‐and‐carry” basis (belligerents had to pay in advance then export goods in their own ships).
Anctient writing are what they are examples of