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
pochemuha
3 years ago
5

The definition of the key term citizen: *

History
1 answer:
SVETLANKA909090 [29]3 years ago
3 0

a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized:

"a Polish citizen"

synonyms

subject, national, passport holder, native, taxpayer, ... more

You might be interested in
Which two country fell to dictators following world war 1
german
Tbh I don’t really know hehe
4 0
3 years ago
Explain what the great compromise was? <br><br> Help me please
grin007 [14]

Answer:

July 16, 1987, began with a light breeze, a cloudless sky, and a spirit of celebration. On that day, 200 senators and representatives boarded a special train for a journey to Philadelphia to celebrate a singular congressional anniversary.

Exactly 200 years earlier, the framers of the U.S. Constitution, meeting at Independence Hall, had reached a supremely important agreement. Their so-called Great Compromise (or Connecticut Compromise in honor of its architects, Connecticut delegates Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth) provided a dual system of congressional representation. In the House of Representatives each state would be assigned a number of seats in proportion to its population. In the Senate, all states would have the same number of seats. Today, we take this arrangement for granted; in the wilting-hot summer of 1787, it was a new idea.

In the weeks before July 16, 1787, the framers had made several important decisions about the Senate’s structure. They turned aside a proposal to have the House of Representatives elect senators from lists submitted by the individual state legislatures and agreed that those legislatures should elect their own senators.

By July 16, the convention had already set the minimum age for senators at 30 and the term length at six years, as opposed to 25 for House members, with two-year terms. James Madison explained that these distinctions, based on “the nature of the senatorial trust, which requires greater extent of information and stability of character,” would allow the Senate “to proceed with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom than the popular[ly elected] branch.”

The issue of representation, however, threatened to destroy the seven-week-old convention. Delegates from the large states believed that because their states contributed proportionally more to the nation’s financial and defensive resources, they should enjoy proportionally greater representation in the Senate as well as in the House. Small-state delegates demanded, with comparable intensity, that all states be equally represented in both houses. When Sherman proposed the compromise, Benjamin Franklin agreed that each state should have an equal vote in the Senate in all matters—except those involving money.

Over the Fourth of July holiday, delegates worked out a compromise plan that sidetracked Franklin’s proposal. On July 16, the convention adopted the Great Compromise by a heart-stopping margin of one vote. As the 1987 celebrants duly noted, without that vote, there would likely have been no Constitution.

Explanation:

Hope I helped!

3 0
3 years ago
HELP
torisob [31]

Answer:

At the start of the twentieth century there were approximately 250,000 Native Americans in the USA – just 0.3 per cent of the population – most living on reservations where they exercised a limited degree of self-government. During the course of the nineteenth century they had been deprived of much of their land by forced removal westwards, by a succession of treaties (which were often not honoured by the white authorities) and by military defeat by the USA as it expanded its control over the American West.  

In 1831 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, had attempted to define their status. He declared that Indian tribes were ‘domestic dependent nations’ whose ‘relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian’. Marshall was, in effect, recognising that America’s Indians are unique in that, unlike any other minority, they are both separate nations and part of the United States. This helps to explain why relations between the federal government and the Native Americans have been so troubled. A guardian prepares his ward for adult independence, and so Marshall’s judgement implies that US policy should aim to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream US culture. But a guardian also protects and nurtures a ward until adulthood is achieved, and therefore Marshall also suggests that the federal government has a special obligation to care for its Native American population. As a result, federal policy towards Native Americans has lurched back and forth, sometimes aiming for assimilation and, at other times, recognising its responsibility for assisting Indian development.

What complicates the story further is that (again, unlike other minorities seeking recognition of their civil rights) Indians have possessed some valuable reservation land and resources over which white Americans have cast envious eyes. Much of this was subsequently lost and, as a result, the history of Native Americans is often presented as a morality tale. White Americans, headed by the federal government, were the ‘bad guys’, cheating Indians out of their land and resources. Native Americans were the ‘good guys’, attempting to maintain a traditional way of life much more in harmony with nature and the environment than the rampant capitalism of white America, but powerless to defend their interests. Only twice, according to this narrative, did the federal government redeem itself: firstly during the Indian New Deal from 1933 to 1945, and secondly in the final decades of the century when Congress belatedly attempted to redress some Native American grievances.

There is a lot of truth in this summary, but it is also simplistic. There is no doubt that Native Americans suffered enormously at the hands of white Americans, but federal Indian policy was shaped as much by paternalism, however misguided, as by white greed. Nor were Indians simply passive victims of white Americans’ actions. Their responses to federal policies, white Americans’ actions and the fundamental economic, social and political changes of the twentieth century were varied and divisive. These tensions and cross-currents are clearly evident in the history of the Indian New Deal and the policy of termination that replaced it in the late 1940s and 1950s. Native American history in the mid-twentieth century was much more than a simple story of good and evil, and it raises important questions (still unanswered today) about the status of Native Americans in modern US society.

Explanation:

Plz give me brainliest worked hard

8 0
3 years ago
In Hinduism, what
Hitman42 [59]

\quad \huge \quad \quad \boxed{ \tt \:Answer }

\tt \:Individuals \:\: are \:\: recarnated\:\:back \:\: to \:\: Earth

____________________________________

\large \tt Explanation \: :

Hindus believes in the concept of " Samsara "

According to that, death of a person only refers to physical body, but their soul (atman) remains and then reborn in other body after death. People also believe that the atman is sent to other realms.

Answered by : ❝ AǫᴜᴀWɪᴢ ❞

7 0
2 years ago
HELLPPP !!!!!! What was the black cabinet? O A. Communist organizers that supported unemployed councils O B. An agency of the Ne
AnnyKZ [126]

Answer:

The correct answer is C. A group that advised President Roosevelt on public policy

Explanation:

C is the correct answer because it refers to the group of people who were advising president Roosevelt during the period between 1933 and 1945. They mostly advised president on the affairs regarding the Afro-Americans.

A is wrong because it refers to Unemployed Councils, an organization inside the Communist Party of United States.

B is wrong because it can refer to certain agencies that were created  during 1930s.

D is wrong because it refers to part of Democratic Party, led by Herbert Hoover.

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • the states have______ powers that are the constitution does not grant to the national government but does not deny to the states
    14·2 answers
  • What conditions fostered the rise of absolute monarchs in Europe?
    14·2 answers
  • The "long march" of china was led by
    5·2 answers
  • The Kansas-Nebraska Act created the
    9·1 answer
  • How were the independence movements in Vietnam and Kenya similar?
    7·1 answer
  • Gravity
    10·1 answer
  • In two or three sentences, describe one of the principles of the Constitution and identify its importance
    8·1 answer
  • What theory was used to justify claims of racial superiority?
    14·2 answers
  • The vast cold dry region of eastern russia is known as.
    5·1 answer
  • What city in Uzbekistan dates back to the eighth century BC and became a center of trade and
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!