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
Contact [7]
3 years ago
7

WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST!!! What is your stance on abortion? pro-life or pro-choice? why or why not.

History
1 answer:
adell [148]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

pro life because the baby does not want to be made into tomato sauce

Explanation:

You might be interested in
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unne
MaRussiya [10]

As we celebrate the 4th of July, let's ask the question: Did the Framers make a mistake by amending the Constitution with the Bill of Rights? Would Americans have more liberty today had there not been a Bill of Rights? You say, "Williams, what's wrong with you? America without the Bill of Rights is unthinkable!" Let's look at it.

After the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there were intense ratification debates about the proposed Constitution. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton expressed grave reservations about Thomas Jefferson's, George Mason's and others insistence that the Constitution be amended by the Bill of Rights. It wasn't because they had little concern with liberty guarantees. Quite to the contrary they were concerned about the loss of liberties.

Alexander Hamilton expressed his concerns in Federalist Paper No. 84, "[B]ills of rights . . . are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks, "For why declare that things shall not be done [by Congress] which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given [to Congress] by which restrictions may be imposed?" Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gives it authority to do. Powers not granted belong to the people and the states. Another way of putting Hamilton's concern: why have an amendment prohibiting Congress from infringing on our right to play hopscotch when the Constitution gives Congress no authority to infringe upon our hopscotch rights in the first place.

Alexander Hamilton added that a Bill of Rights would "contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more [powers] than were granted. . . . [it] would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power." Going back to our hopscotch example, those who would usurp our God-given liberties might enact a law banning our playing hide-and-seek. They'd justify their actions by claiming that nowhere in the Constitution is there a guaranteed right to play hide-and-seek. They'd say, "hopscotch yes, but hide-and-seek, no."

To mollify Alexander Hamilton's fears about how a Bill of Rights might be used as a pretext to infringe on human rights, the Framers added the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Boiled down to its basics, the Ninth Amendment says it's impossible to list all of our God-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress. Applying the Ninth Amendment to our example: just because playing hopscotch is listed and hide-and-seek is not doesn't mean that we don't have a right to play hide-and-seek.

How do courts see the Ninth Amendment today? It's more than a safe bet to say that courts, as well as lawyers, treat the Ninth Amendment with the deepest of contempt. In fact, I believe, that if any appellant's lawyer argued Ninth Amendment protections on behalf of his client, he would be thrown out of court if not disbarred. That's what the Ninth Amendment has come to mean today. I believe we all have a right to privacy, but how do you think a Ninth Amendment argument claiming privacy rights would fly with information gathering agencies like the Internal Revenue Service? Try to assert your rights to privacy in dealing with the IRS and other government agencies and I'll send you cigarettes and candy while you're in jail.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Agriculture in Ethiopia​
TEA [102]

Answer:what quition

Explanation:

6 0
2 years ago
We’re the mongols barbarians or builders of the world?
Kay [80]

Answer:

It´s difficult to provide a simple answer to that question. There maybe more than one answer. It depends on the views each person has, on cultural and individual values.

The Mongols were seen as barbarians by the Chinese. They didn´t follow Chinese customs and social norms, and anybody outside the circle of Chinese culture was taken as a barbarian. Besides, China - Zhongguo, the Middle Kingdom - always saw itself as the center of civilization. After their conquest of imperial China, the Mongols adopted Chinese norms and assimilated to Chinese culture, just as it has happened with other foreign conquerors, which constitutes an acknowledgement of Chinese sophistication.

By their global conquest - the Mongol hordes reached Europe and Southeast Asia - they put together into one political entity many former kingdoms and lands that had had no previous contact with each other. Curiously enough, Mongol expansion was a vehicle of Chinese culture during the Yuan dinasty, founded by Mongols rulers in imperial China.

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
As de jure segregation formed and solidified in the South:
k0ka [10]

Answer:

(b)-Levels of prejudice and racism increased.

Explanation:

<u>In the South, there was the Jim Crow Laws.</u> This legislation was related to the segregation of citizens in the cities of the South, <u>giving a considerable highlight to the white people. </u>The origin of these laws, namely the Black Codes, can be traced after the sign of the 13th Amendment (the Abolition of Slavery) in 1865. <u>Black Codes strictly determined where black people could work, live or walk,</u> and these codes would strenght through the years, especially after the rising of the Ku Klux Klan.

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What changed about art during the renaissance
zimovet [89]

Answer: One of the big changes in art was to paint and sculpt subjects realistically. This is called realism and involves a number of techniques that make the subjects and background look like they would in real life. This also meant giving the subjects more emotional qualities.

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • *****CRIMINAL JUSTICE*****
    14·1 answer
  • Space is not completely empty. There are small particles in space. What happens when these particles come together?
    7·1 answer
  • US president Dwight Eisenhower developed the domino theory based on a fear of which possible event? How Chi Minh, ruler of North
    12·2 answers
  • Why did grant not want his troops to celebrate the surrender of the Confederate groups?
    12·2 answers
  • 80 points extra
    7·1 answer
  • What are some ways that a new mining project would impact the area in which it is located?
    14·1 answer
  • Which of the following did Egyptians and Mayans have in common?
    9·2 answers
  • Which two statements about Oklahoma's original constitution are true?
    11·1 answer
  • How did Joseph Pulitzer differ from William Randolph Hearst?
    15·1 answer
  • What happened to minorities in the
    5·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!