The passing of the Tea Act imposed no new taxes on the American colonies. ... Besides the tax on tea which had been in place since 1767, what fundamentally angered the American colonists about the Tea Act was the British East India Company's government sanctioned monopoly on tea.
I hope this helps<3
If it's multiple choice then it'd be California and New Mexico.
Answer:
Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev[e] (born 2 March 1931) is a Russian and former Soviet politician. The eighth and last leader of the Soviet Union, he was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1985 until 1991. He was also the country's head of state from 1988 until 1991, serving as the chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet from 1988 to 1989, chairman of the Supreme Soviet from 1989 to 1990, and president of the Soviet Union from 1990 to 1991. Ideologically, Gorbachev initially adhered to Marxism–Leninism, although he had moved towards social democracy by the early 1990s.
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
Answer:
New Zealand is a multicultural country. New Zealand's citizens accept and welcome multiculturalism. The majority of residents of New Zealand accept other ethnicities and nationalities and have no problem with all of them as long as they obey the law and respect the regulations of the country.
Explanation
A multicultural New Zealand where people of different cultures and beliefs live safely and in harmony.
To represent and support multicultural councils and ethnic, migrant and refugee communities through leadership, partnership, capacity building and service delivery.
Diversity, Inclusiveness, Equality, Participation, Collaboration, Service to the Community.
