<span>Assuming that this is referring to the same list of options that was posted before with this question, <span>the correct response would be the "French and Indian War", since the end of this war forced France to give up much of their land, in what is now Canada, to Britain.</span></span>
Answer:
During the American Revolutionary War, a neutralist was someone who was impartial to both the loyalists and the patriots. They did not favor either side.
From the choices provided, it is <span>a. zworykin.
</span>
Answer:
Native American removal would reduce conflict between the federal and state governments. It would allow white settlers to occupy more of the South and the West, presumably protecting from foreign invasion. ... Jackson seems to be saying the U.S. government is doing Native Americans a favor and they should be grateful.
Explanation:
Explanation: The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was signed into effect by President Jackson, which allowed Native Americans to settle in land within state borders in exchange for unsettled land west of the Mississippi. Many Native American tribes reacted peacefully, but many reacted violently.
The answer to the question is pretty much in the question itself. At issue was whether the funding system for public schools in Texas was meeting the minimum constitutional standard for funding public schools, and the court said yes. The legal challenges to the funding plan were claims like:
... The funding provided by the Legislature was insufficient to ensure that students would meet academic standards.
... Large differences in funding were seen between rich and poor school districts. (Rich and poor based on property values, and property taxes were the main funding mechanism for schools.)
The funding system passed at the Texas Supreme Court level, but barely. There generally remains a feeling that more must be done to fund all schools more adequately, but at least the bare minimum was seen (by the court) as being done.
