plzzzz help me
I'll mark u as brainliest​

Documenting what changes have been made to a program and what changes are needed

[tex]▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ { \huge \mathfrak{Answer}}▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ [/tex]

The Correct choice is :

The continental crust is the coolest region.

your answer should be - changed in the overall price level in an economy over time.

Hope that helps

Answer:

Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property." Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives.

Explanation:

please mark me brainliest.

Answer:

I hope it helped

Explanation:

The American Revolution had an impact on other countries. The American Revolution served as a model for other countries to follow when they decided to become free from their colonial rulers. ... Other countries also used our Declaration of Independence as a guide for their fight for freedom.

Answer:

New regionalism gave rise to regional organizations that had a wide-ranging set of stated policy objectives. ... Unlike old regionalism, which was oriented more toward interactions between states, new regionalism involved a variety of state and nonstate actors involved in a process of transformation of the world order.

Explanation:

Answer:

Explanation: no

Answer:

troy hadent been there before

Explanation:

Answer:

Hiiiiiii!!! :)))

Explanation:

How are you?

Answer:

hiiiiii  hru wyd

Explanation:

ᴘᴀɴɢʜᴀʟɪᴘ ᴘᴀɴᴀᴏ,ᴘᴀʟᴀɢʏᴏ

Explanation:

sᴛᴜᴅʏ ᴡᴇʟʟ

Answer:

Correct

Explanation:

Answer:

whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Answer:The Law of Conservation of Mass dates from Antoine Lavoisier's 1789 discovery that mass is neither created nor destroyed in chemical reactions.

Answer: The Law of Conservation of Mass dates from Antoine Lavoisier's 1789 discovery that mass is neither created nor destroyed in chemical reactions. ... If we account for all reactants and products in a chemical reaction, the total mass will be the same at any point in time in any closed system.

A) what is the law of conservation of mass?

Law of conservation of mass:

According to the law of conservation mass, mass can neither be created nor destroyed in a chemical equation it changed from one to another form.

B) what is an every day example of the law of conservation of mass?

Burning of wood:

When wood is burn it converted into ashes, soot and gases. The mass of all these are equal to the mass of reactants i.e, oxygen and charcoal.

C) how do we see the law of conservation of mass everyday?

Burning of candle:

When candle is burn the mass of wax and oxygen is equal to the product which are carbon dioxide and water. Thus burning of candle also follow the law of conservation of mass.

Burning of wood:

When wood is burn it converted into ashes, soot and gases. The mass of all these are equal to the mass of reactants i.e, oxygen and charcoal.

D) who proposed the theory of the law of conservation of mass?

This law was given by french chemist  Antoine Lavoisier in 1789. According to this law mass of reactant and mass of product must be equal, because masses are not created or destroyed in a chemical reaction.

Explanation:

Answer:

Explanation: midwest

Answer:

Mexico City is the answer

Answer:

I am ...............................

Answer:i am good a social studies why whats the question

Explanation:

Answer: Yes, because he wrote about his event

Answer:

independence, Privacy, Equality, Achievement, Timeliness

Explanation:

Correct Me if I'm wrong, Hope this helps! :)

Answer: graegaehagggd

Explanation:

Answer:

yes

Explanation:

they have been in war for years trying to claim the land as theirs and they both believe that the land belongs to them because it is says that in their religons

Answer:

The Athenian state was actually a direct democracy while the US is a representative democracy. Citizens are allowed to vote in both states, and both also have a bicameral legislature.

hope it helps

mark me brainliest pls

Answer:

47

Explanation:

When there is the liquidation of fixed assets that are of use-value with cash collection, the accounts recorded are as follows C. Increase income, reduce costs.

Thus, the difference is an increase in income (profit) if the credit side exceeds the debit side of the "Sale of Fixed Assets" account.

Learn more: https://brainly.com/question/21143131

Answer:

a. The Equal Protection Clause is a clause from the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause provides that "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Its purpose is to apply substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War. Hence, in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), Supreme Court held that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause while bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

While in the case of Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001), Supreme Court held that the State violated the Equal Protection Clause in drawing the 1997 boundaries was based on clearly erroneous findings.

b. In the case of Easley v. Cromartie, an appeal from the decision given in hunt v. Cromartie was filed in the supreme court of the United States by Easley. In hunt v. Cromartie, the court held that the legislature of North Carolina did not use the factor of race while drawing the boundaries in the twelfth congressional district,1992. It was held by the court that the legislature did not violate the equal protection clause of the constitution and no evidence to prove that legislature set its boundaries on a racial basis rather than a political basis.

 In Easley v Cromartie the appeal was that drawing the boundaries for voting violated the equal protection clause of the constitution. The supreme court of the United States held that the decision of the district court is erroneous because it actually relied upon racial factors and this is not in the interest of the state.

In Shaw v. Reno the court concluded that the plan of North Carolina tried to segregate the voters on the basis of race.

Answer: A.) Its purpose is to apply substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War. Hence, in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), Supreme Court held that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause while bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act. While in the case of Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001), Supreme Court held that the State violated the Equal Protection Clause in drawing the 1997 boundaries was based on clearly erroneous findings. Its goal is to impose significantly more constitutional limitations on the states than existed prior to the Civil War. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), that racial redistricting must be subject to strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause and that the bodies responsible for redistricting must be aware of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act. While the Supreme Court found that the State violated the Equal Protection Clause in defining the 1997 borders was based on patently false conclusions in the case of Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001).

B.) Easley filed an appeal with the US Supreme Court in the case of Easley v. Cromartie, challenging the ruling in Hunt v. Cromartie. In the case of Hunt v. Cromartie, the court determined that the North Carolina legislature did not consider race when establishing the borders of the twelfth congressional district in 1992. The court ruled that there was no proof that the legislature had violated the equal protection article of the constitution or that it had drawn boundaries based on race rather than politics. In Easley v Cromartie the argument was that establishing the borders for voting violated the equal protection clause of the constitution. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the lower court's ruling was incorrect because it genuinely relied on racial issues, which is against the interests of the state. In Shaw v. Reno, the court found that North Carolina's voting strategy attempted to separate voters based on race.

c.) I think that a move that members of this court would disagree with the BLM (Black lives Matter) movement. This case, Easley v Cromartie has severe relations to the equal protection clause. This clause states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This clause when then debunked when later furthering the case, which is almost exactly what the BLM movement was about. Both cases disagreed with the equality of particular groups of people. 

Explanation: just submitted