B. a person's soul is born only once and disappears following his or her death
C. the extent to which a person has lived a virtuous life determines the quality of his or her afterlife
D. a person's soul is reborn continually with no possible release from the cycle of life and death
According to both Hinduism and Buddhism, the extent to which a person has lived a virtuous life determines the quality of his or her afterlife. Hence, option C is correct.
The life that a person gets after the virtue of his or her death is known as the afterlife. It is a fictional concept, although many religious beliefs like Hinduism and Buddhism have agreed upon the concept of afterlife.
As per the religious beliefs of these religions, a person's afterlife is a reflective of how he or she lived the virtuous life, which is the actual life before the death.
Hence, option C holds true regarding afterlife.
Learn more about afterlife here:
#SPJ2
Answer: the extent to which a person has lived a virtuous life determines the quality of his or her afterlife
Explanation:
In the 1930s, the determination of ownership and jurisdiction over underwater coastal areas in the United States was primarily based on legal principles and historical precedents. The specific status of these areas, whether they belonged to the state or federal government, was determined through a combination of legislation, court decisions, and administrative actions.
One of the key factors influencing the determination of ownership was the concept of "sovereign lands," which refers to submerged lands beneath navigable waters. The United States follows the Public Trust Doctrine, which holds that certain natural resources, including submerged lands, are held in trust by the government for the benefit of the public. This doctrine recognizes that the government has a duty to protect and manage these resources for present and future generations.
The ownership and jurisdictional rights over submerged lands were initially established through common law principles inherited from England. Under English common law, the Crown held ownership over navigable waters and their underlying lands. When the American colonies gained independence, this principle was transferred to the newly formed states.
However, with the establishment of the federal government under the U.S. Constitution, questions arose regarding the extent of federal authority over submerged lands. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among states (the Commerce Clause). This power has been interpreted by courts to include authority over navigable waters and their resources.
In response to these questions, Congress passed several acts in the early 19th century asserting federal control over submerged lands. One notable example is the Swamp Lands Act of 1850, which granted certain swamp and overflowed lands to states on the condition that they would be reclaimed for agricultural purposes. This act recognized that submerged lands could be transferred from federal to state ownership under specific circumstances.
The issue of ownership and jurisdiction over underwater coastal areas gained further clarity with a series of court decisions in the early 20th century. In particular, two landmark cases played a significant role in shaping the legal framework: United States v. California (1947) and United States v. Texas (1950).
In United States v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government held title to submerged lands within three miles of the coastline, known as the "submerged lands belt." This decision was based on the interpretation of the Submerged Lands Act of 1947, which confirmed federal ownership over these areas. The Court held that the federal government had paramount rights over submerged lands for purposes such as navigation, commerce, and national defense.
Similarly, in United States v. Texas, the Supreme Court affirmed federal ownership over submerged lands within three marine leagues (approximately 10.35 miles) from the coastline. This decision was based on the equal footing doctrine, which holds that newly admitted states enter the Union with the same rights and privileges as existing states. As a result, Texas, like other coastal states, did not have exclusive ownership over submerged lands beyond its territorial waters.
It is important to note that while federal ownership was established within certain limits, states also retained authority over submerged lands beyond those limits. The Submerged Lands Act of 1953 further clarified this division of authority by granting states ownership and control over submerged lands from their coastline to a distance of three geographical miles.
The determination of ownership and jurisdiction over underwater coastal areas continued to evolve in subsequent years through additional legislation and court decisions. For example, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 extended federal control over submerged lands beyond state waters to the outer continental shelf for purposes such as mineral exploration and extraction.
In summary, in the 1930s, the determination of whether underwater coastal areas belonged to the state or federal government was influenced by legal principles such as sovereign lands, common law traditions inherited from England, constitutional interpretations, acts of Congress, and court decisions. The specific status of these areas was ultimately determined through a combination of legislation, court rulings, and administrative actions.
Answer:
its A in the thing above meant to give him 5 stars
Supreme Court only hears the cases which have worked their way all the way up from local state courts.
Further Explanation:
The Supreme Court of United States is the highest court of the country. It looks after the workings of government in regards to rights provided to people and also keeps an eye of working of lower courts such as Local and State Courts. It never takes up any new case. All the cases that come to Supreme Court for hearing and further verdict come from lower courts. If someone is unsatisfied with the verdict which is given to him/her from lower court then He/She has full right to re-appeal against the verdict in Supreme Court. There is one chief justice and eight associate judges in the Supreme Court. All the judges of Supreme Court are appointed for lifetime. Supreme courts works both under Appellate jurisdiction and Original Jurisdiction. Every year around 10000 cases come to Supreme Court for review but only 80-100 are accepted for reviewing after going through those cases. If Supreme Court chooses to hear a case, both parties are given 30 minutes each to present their case orally and sometimes in some cases, If Supreme Court feels to hear the case more, then this period of oral discussion can also be extended. Earlier the argument of cases used to go on for days and weeks but with the time the workload on Supreme Court has increased and that is the reason there is time limit set for the discussion of a case by Supreme Court.
Learn more:
1.Which issue did the Supreme Court answer in the case of Duncan v. Louisiana? brainly.com/question/8891404
2.In the Supreme Court’s decision in korematsu v. United States, the court said that korematsu? brainly.com/question/8391589
Answer details:
Grade:High School
Subject: Constitution
Chapter:Supreme Court
Keywords:
Supreme Court, Local Court, State Court, Judge, Authority, Case, Verdict, Case Hearing, Lifetime Appointment, Case discussion, Appellate jurisdiction.
One of the ways in which American companies compete on a global level is by outsourcing their production activities.
Sometimes, products manufactured in developed countries cannot compete in prices which those produced in developing countries where labor costs are much smaller decresing production costs and allowing companies to charge a lower price.
Outsourcing has become a generalized practice, used by many companies from developed countries. Their manufacturing activities are conducted in plants which are located in developing countries where, apart from cheap labor, they usually find relaxed legal requirements for companies from which they can earn a profit too.
Post World War II, West Germany’s recovery was propelled by its acceptance of capitalism and the immense financial aid it received from the Marshall Plan. The introduction of a new currency, the Deutsche Mark, also greatly contributed to the economic stabilization. By 1970, West Germany had emerged as a major economic force in Europe.
West Germany’s recovery after World War II was indeed driven by its acceptance of a capitalist economy and massive assistance from abroad, like the Marshall Plan. The economy's redevelopment was centered on significant investment in industrial production, causing a remarkable surge in economic growth during the 50s and 60s. Simultaneously, West Germany was benefiting immensely from the Marshall Plan, a U.S.-led economic effort that infused billions into Europe's economy, prominently contributing to the revival of West Germany.
The usage of a new currency, the Deutsche Mark, also gave a boost to this revival. This independence in monetary policy helped in stabilizing the economy. By 1970, West Germany had established itself as an economic powerhouse in Europe.The country's acceptance of a capitalist economy and external financial assistance were crucial factors in its phenomenal recovery. This is an undeniable testament to the robustness and adaptability of capitalist economic structures in post-war scenarios.
#SPJ12