1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Vika [28.1K]
3 years ago
13

Magbigay ng limang halimbawa ng salik​

History
1 answer:
Anestetic [448]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:What???????????

Explanation:

You might be interested in
What was the goal of the new life movement
sveta [45]

The New Life Movement (Chinese: 新生活運動; pinyin: Xīn Shēnghuó yùndòng) was a government-led civic movement in 1930s China to promote cultural reform and Neo-Confucian social morality and to ultimately unite China under a centralised ideology following the emergence of ideological challenges to the status quo.
4 0
3 years ago
Why do people support the Right to Bear Arms amendment?
EleoNora [17]

Answer:

Explanation:Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).

5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Could slaves become citizens in Athens and Rome?
evablogger [386]

Answer:

Yes they could have became citizens of Rome and Athens because the law changed sooner than later.

Explanation:

That law was relaxed as well as time went on; for example, children of freed slaves could apply to become citizens. Even if both parents were Roman citizens, children had no rights. Boys of Roman citizens went though a ceremony when they were 16 or 17, depending upon how close their birthday was to March 17th, and at that time became citizens of Rome with full benefits.

6 0
3 years ago
Explain how the outcome of Civil war differed from many initial predictions. I cant see the answers so could you maybe message t
sdas [7]

Answer:

Many predicted that the South win the war.

Explanation:

The Civil War of the 1860s fought between the North (Union) and the South (Confederates). Many expected the South to win the war because it had the military advantage as they knew the terrain (landscape) better than the North and battled for their land. The South more men qualified as officers and soldiers. Majority of the famous Generals and Commanders in America were from the Southern region including; Robert E. Lee, Nathan Bedford Forrest, James Longstreet, Stonewall Jackson and others. The Confederate officers recognised by their ambitious nature and individualistic. They followed the rules of honour and personal pride, which help them to fight together for the cause.

7 0
3 years ago
The defendant had a(n) ____ with only a judge deciding the case
prohojiy [21]

The answer is

Bench trial

A bench trial is a form of trial that is judged only by a judge instead of a jury, it´s mostly used to administrative faults.

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Here you just have to match. See the picture. . .
    15·1 answer
  • When the US dollar grows more valuable in relation to the euro, it has also grown more valuable in relation to every other curre
    9·2 answers
  • What was the effect of the change from hand power to machine power in industry?
    6·2 answers
  • Which of the following are benefits of the foreign exchange program? (Select all that apply.)
    15·1 answer
  • The addition of the Louisiana Purchase did all the following EXCEPT
    5·2 answers
  • When the equilibrium is offset by any
    10·1 answer
  • Who colonized St. Augustine?
    10·2 answers
  • When Coronado's men visited the pueblos, what did they do? a. They traveled to numerous pueblos and gave gifts. b. They traveled
    12·2 answers
  • How did the Supreme Court play a role in undermining the newly gained rights of African Americans in the Reconstruction era?
    10·1 answer
  • Summarize how the English language developed into what it is today
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!