Explanation:
- The movement was essentially a peaceful and non-violent protest against the British government in India.
- Indians were asked to relinquish their titles and resign from nominated seats in the local bodies as a mark of protest.
- People were asked to resign from their government jobs.
- People were asked to withdraw their children from government-controlled or aided schools and colleges.
- People were asked to boycott foreign goods and use only Indian-made goods.
- People were asked to boycott the elections to the legislative councils.
- People were asked not to serve in the British army.
- It was also planned that if the above steps did not bring results, people would refuse to pay their taxes.
- The INC also demanded Swarajya or self-government.
- Only completely non-violent means would be employed to get the demands fulfilled.
- The non-cooperation movement was a decisive step in the independence movement because, for the first time, the INC was ready to forego constitutional means to achieve self-rule.
- Gandhiji had assured that Swaraj would be achieved in a year if this movement was continued to completion.
Hope this will help you..
Answer:
purge.
Explanation:
periodt,but it'd be fun in my opinion
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options attached, we can say the following.
We could say that Renaissance artwork is nationalistic in that it represented the petitions of sponsors or patrons of the time, as was the case of the powerful Medici family in Florence, Italy, that hired the best artists of the time to make them works in sculpture, painting, and architecture. The best example lies in the same Florence, the cradle of the Renaissance, There is art, beauty, and formidable arts everywhere you walk.
This created a nationalistic sentiment that made powerful families and locals proud of their city-state and artistic expressions and culture.
Answer:
When governments are violating human rights either directly or indirectly, civil society should hold them accountable and speak out. The international community also has an obligation to monitor governments and their track records with human rights.
Explanation:
The Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.” It is not a free-standing grant of power, but rather was intended to give Congress the power to enact laws needed to “carry into execution” the various powers granted to the federal government by other parts of the Constitution.
The wording of the Clause suggests that a law authorized by it must meet two separate requirements: it must be “necessary” to the execution of some power granted to the federal government, and also “proper.” Since at least the 1790s, debate has raged over the meaning of these two terms. In the early republic, debate over the interpretation of the Clause focused on the constitutionality or lack thereof of the First Bank of the United States. When the Bank was first proposed in 1790, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson argued that its establishment was not authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause because the word “necessary” should be interpreted to include only such measures as are truly essential to the implementation of other federal powers. By contrast, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton defended the Bank, arguing that “necessary” should be interpreted to include any law that is “useful” or “convenient.” The issue of the constitutionality of the Bank did not reach the Supreme Court until 1819, when the justices decided the case of McCulloch v. Maryland.
