I believe the answer is mid west
Answer:
This is a strong argument about the state's responsibility in education, but it is not a strong argument that the law is constitutional under the Trade Clause.
Explanation:
In fact, the law is constitutional on the trade clause, but the argument presented above does not refer to this.
The trade clause states that the congress has the power to regulate and manage trade in relation to foreign trade, between states and with indigenous people. However, the above argument represents a reinforcement of the government's responsibility, including congress, to maintain an efficient and safe education, otherwise the trade may be affected.
Answer:
<em>Desde por volta de 700, "prisioneiros capturados nas guerras santas que expandiram o Islã da Arábia pelo norte da África e através da região do Golfo Pérsico" eram vendidos e usados como escravos. Durante os três impérios medievais do norte da África (séculos X a XV), o comércio de escravos foi largamente praticado.</em>
Explanation:
Scottish<span> settlers continued to come to </span>Ireland<span> throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. </span>Scots-Irish<span> immigrants settled in the </span>American<span> colonies from the 1600s. ... The majority of the </span>Scots-Irish<span> who came to </span>America<span> in the colonial period settled in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the Carolinas.</span>
This is in my opinion one of the aspects that makes the central courts and the different lines of thought within a single subject so interesting. The clash of ideas that we have in this case is a perfect example.
- On one side we have those who look at the current 30 million uninsured Americans, which include millions in Texas, and the undeniable success it had in Massachusetts. Most of them conclude that this mandate is a government success.
- On the other hand, we can find those who believe that this is a terrible invasion of the government to the citizen's free will to choose their own healthcare options, they see government overreach, and at the same time an unprecedented intrusion on individual liberties to which there is no justification.
Unfortunately this is something that millions of Americans have been forced into. It's evident how they refused to create a public health care system, and instead give more power to the private sector.
After this short debate of ideas, I will give you one question to ponder on: Which principle is more important? Your freedom, your civil liberties, and your freedom from the government line of thought, or the possibilty of providing health care to millions of uninsured Americans?
I hope this solves your question!
Happy 2019! :)
