It revolves around <span>challenge an orthodox position concerning historical explanation. Historical explanations often designed in such a way that always favor the one who live to tell the tell. E.h carr's on the other hand pointed out that the version given by so called 'winenrs' in the history often does not reflect the truth.
</span>
Answer:
Si no me equivoco cuando toca la red durante tu saque, y cae a tu lado de la cancha, es punto para el otro equipo, pero si haces un saque y toca la red, y cae al otro lado, es punto para ustedes.
The corporations and unions have been able to spend unlimited sums of money on campaign advertising since 2010 because the Supreme Court ruled that campaign spending is a protected form of free speech.
Answer: Option B
<u>Explanation:
</u>
The Supreme Court in its judgement of a 2010 case fought between the parties 'Citizen United' and the 'Federal Election Commission' clarified that the expenditure made by a political party to communicate with its subjects forms an integral part of their freedom of speech and hence their spending on election campaigns cannot be capped by law.
