Is this right? if not correct my answer.

Answer:

A. political events

Explanation:

USAtestprep

In Mitchell v. Helms (2000), Religion's controversial social topic was an important part of the Supreme Court's decision. Thus, option D is correct.

'A courtroom can be defined as the place where the judge or people usually go in to get a decision for a particular trial."

The Supreme Court dismissed a lengthy important constitutional objection to public financing of educational materials for religious institutions in Mitchell v. Helms,. Administrators in Louisiana bought materials for both public but also private educational institutions with grant money.

According to Justice Clarence Thomas, who was completely neutral and served a practical function, so no unbiased observer could reasonably conclude that the administration had supported religious brainwashing in private schools.

Therefore, option D is the correct option.

Learn more about courtroom, here:

https://brainly.com/question/19974203

#SPJ2

Answer:

Niceeeee

Never knew thatt

Explanation:

Answer: Varies

Explanation:

It was less of a rebellion issue.

B. Congress

The Constituion provides that an amendment may be propesed by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote.

Answer: I would say congress

Answer: It is A

Explanation:

Volga River is the longest river in Europe.

Answer:

It was strictly entertainment for the lower classes. By the 1850s, railroads had begun to receive encouragement from the federal government in the form of: Question 13 options: military protection.

Explanation:

legs ( i think u can give it a shot tho)

Explanation:

A knight began getting dressed by covering his legs.

hope this helps you.

Answer:

It guides the collection of Information

Explanation:

Having a research plan allows you to know what information is important to collect and how to use that information in your paper.

Answer: The answer is (D)It guides the collection of information

I hope this helped

Explanation:

Answer:

the answe is b and I'm sorry if it's wrong I got it right in my test

Answer:

B.They were able to convince Southern leader to stop supporting slavery

Answer:

Explanation:

false

Answer:

While today we marvel at the extraordinary accomplishment of our Founding Fathers, their own reaction to the US Constitution when it was presented to them for their signatures was considerably less enthusiastic. Benjamin Franklin, ever the optimist even at the age of 81, gave what was for him a remarkably restrained assessment in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention: "…when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views." He thought it impossible to expect a "perfect production" from such a gathering, but he believed that the Constitution they had just drafted, "with all its faults," was better than any alternative that was likely to emerge.

Nearly all of the delegates harbored objections, but persuaded by Franklin's logic, they put aside their misgivings and affixed their signatures to it. Their over-riding concern was the tendency in nearly all parts of the young country toward disorder and disintegration. Americans had used the doctrine of popular sovereignty--"democracy"--as the rationale for their successful rebellion against English authority in 1776. But they had not yet worked out fully the question that has plagued all nations aspiring to democratic government ever since: how to implement principles of popular majority rule while at the same time preserving stable governments that protect the rights and liberties of all citizens.

Few believed that a new federal constitution alone would be sufficient to create a unified nation out of a collection of independent republics spread out over a vast physical space, extraordinarily diverse in their economic interests, regional loyalties, and ethnic and religious attachments. And there would be new signs of disorder after 1787 that would remind Americans what an incomplete and unstable national structure they had created: settlers in western Pennsylvania rebelled in 1794 because of taxes on their locally distilled whiskey; in western North Carolina there were abortive attempts to create an independent republic of "Franklin" which would ally itself with Spain to insure its independence from the United States; there was continued conflict with Indians across the whole western frontier and increased fear of slave unrest, particularly when news of the slave-led revolution in Haiti reached American shores.

But as fragile as America's federal edifice was at the time of the founding, there was much in the culture and environment that contributed to a national consensus and cohesion: a common language; a solid belief in the principles of English common law and constitutionalism; a widespread commitment (albeit in diverse forms) to the Protestant religion; a shared revolutionary experience; and, perhaps most important, an economic environment which promised most free, white Americans if not great wealth, at least an independent sufficiency.

The American statesmen who succeeded those of the founding generation served their country with a self-conscious sense that the challenges of maintaining a democratic union were every bit as great after 1787 as they were before. Some aspects of their nation-building program--their continuing toleration of slavery and genocidal policies toward American Indians--are fit objects of national shame, not honor. But statesmen of succeeding generations--Lincoln foremost among them--would continue the quest for a "more perfect union."

Such has been our success in building a powerful and cohesive democratic nation-state in post-Civil War America that most Americans today assume that principles of democracy and national harmony somehow naturally go hand-in-hand. But as we look around the rest of the world in the post-Soviet era, we find ample evidence that democratic revolutions do not inevitably lead to national harmony or universal justice. We see that the expression of the "popular will" can create a cacophony of discordant voices, leaving many baffled about the true meaning of majority rule. In far too many places around the world today, the expression of the "popular will" is nothing more than the unleashing of primordial forces of tribal and religious identity which further confound the goal of building stable and consensual governments.

Answer:

true

Explanation:

Answer:

go to essaytyper.com i always use that for essays

Explanation:

Answer:

alright i love this story

Explanation:

Ancient Rome was founded by the two brothers, and demigods, Romulus and Remus, on 21 April 753 BCE. The legend claims that in an argument over who would rule the city (or, in another version, where the city would be located) Romulus killed Remus and named the city after himself.

extra about romulas and remus

Romulus and Remus myth originated sometime in the fourth century B.C., and the exact date of Rome's founding was set by the Roman scholar Marcus Terentius Varro in the first century B.C. According to the legend, Romulus and Remus were the sons of Rhea Silvia, the daughter of King Numitor of Alba Longa.

How was the Roman empire founded?  

Diodorus Siculus. Diodorus Siculus wrote that some historians believe that the Romulus who was the son of the daughter of Aeneas was the founder of Rome.

Answer:

representative democracy

Explanation: we have people show our interest or what we want when we vote or elect representatives .

Answer:

An exhibit on the connection between the antislavery movement and the women's rights movement was created and displayed in Women's Rights

Explanation:

As a result of the rise of privately owned TV networks, European soccer teams were able to demand and make more revenue from competitive bidding.

As a result of private television stations rising:

Thanks to the competition created by other networks rising, soccer teams made money from a bidding process where only the highest bids could show their games.

In conclusion, more private networks meant more money.

Find out more at https://brainly.com/question/2116629.

Answer:

Representative democracy

Explanation:

Since we are represented when we vote or elect people .

Answer:

Representative Democracy

Explanation:

The US government has 3 branches of government. Monarchy doesnt. It has a King and Queen. Dictatorship isnt the anwser because we have more than one making desisions. So that leaves A and D. I'd pick A.

Answer:

Still after the civil war wasn't too friendly yet for former slaves

Explanation:

Answer: that would be the mayflower compact.

Explanation:

The people on the mayflower were puritans and had a law called the mayflower compact that was made on November 11 1620

Answer:

The British blockade prevented weapons and other military supplies from getting through.

Explanation:

Answer:

The blockade barricaded the German coast, Neutral British ports and mined the entire north sea The British blockade prevented weapons and other military supplies from getting through.

Explanation:

Brainliest?

Answer:

The Answer is A

Explanation:

police power, in U.S. constitutional law, the permissible scope of federal or state legislation so far as it may affect the rights of an individual when those rights conflict with the promotion and maintenance of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public

Answer:

as servants of the daimyos, or great lords, the samurai backed up the authority of the shogun and gave him power over the mikado (emperor.

Answer:

gender inequality

Explanation:

women were not treated equally as men. there was unequal distribution of household labour

Lafayette was full of inspiring and helpful ideas for training

Answer:

whats ur question

Explanation:

Answer:Homer Plessy was arrested for being in a train car that was reserved for white people only, and refusing to move.

Explanation:His act of bravery, challenging the state’s Separate Car Act, took him all the way to the Supreme Court – where the courts 1896 decision against him effectively legalised segregation in the US.

ITS OPTIONAL IF YOU WANT TO WRITE THE EXPLANATION

THANKS

              MARK ME AS A BRAINLIEST