Answer: The constitution of New York prescribed the distribution of powers among the state branches as well as with the system of the local government of the state.
Explanation:
The details of the constitution were found outdated and a necessity of revision was developed.
After the first constitutional convention in 1777, the other one started at a period of 20-25 year of interval. The constitution also need the question of holding the question of changes before the voters in every 20 years in New York. Based on this description this can be said that it took 20 years for the establishment of legislature in New York.
Israel specialises is many different products which include diamonds, petroleum, pharmaceuticals, machinery and equipment , computer hardware
Answer:
b. California.
Explanation:
The fight for Hispanic farm laborers in the 20th century was headed by American-Latino activist César Chávez. Much of his movement´s nonviolent actions and campaigns took place in California.
Answer: Glaciers caused the scarring
Explanation: Continental drift was a theory that explained how continents shift position on Earth's surface. Set forth in 1912 by Alfred Wegener, a geophysicist and meteorologist, continental drift also explained why look-alike animal and plant fossils, and similar rock formations, are found on different continents.
The theory of continental drift
Wegener thought all the continents were once joined together in an "Urkontinent" before breaking up and drifting to their current positions. But geologists soundly denounced Wegener's theory of continental drift after he published the details in a 1915 book called "The Origin of Continents and Oceans." Part of the opposition was because Wegener didn't have a good model to explain how the continents moved apart.
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!