Under czarist Russia, daily living conditions for Jews were made so intolerable that millions chose to leave Russia and migrate to other countries. This is an example of ________.

Answers

Answer 1
Answer: Under czarist Russia, daily living conditions for Jews were made so intolerable that millions chose to leave Russia and migrate to other countries and this is an example of indirect transfer. In this case the Jews were not told to leave the country, but they were forced to leave the country  since the government made their living conditions aweful.

Related Questions

For what purpose was the Women’s Christian Temperance Union formed?A. to gain universal voting rights B. to protect the home and ban liquor C. to improve workers’ conditions D. to become a third political party
As a result of the Great Leap Forward, _____. industrial production increased power shifted to conservative Communist leaders industrial production declined members of the Red Guard were sent to prison
The promise of a reward motivates me to accept additional tasks agree or disagree
Which factor was most threatening to the cohesion of the Roman Empire?A.The empire was too large to keep united. B.The empire was separated with few land connections. C.The empire had little access to sea trade. D.The empire treated its many ethnic groups unequally.
Who paid for samul de champlain's trip

What does pending adjudication mean for unemployment in michigan

Answers

Answer:

A legal process

Explanation:

Adjudication is the legal procedure of settling disputes between employee and the employer in Michigan. There are unemployment insurance that runs weekly. The unemployed files for it and the Labor department verifies the track record of such unemployed to ascertain the nature and reason for leaving last appointment. It is then brought before the adjudication hearing to listen to explanations for reasons or clarify conflicting issues. It can be pending when there are reviews and checks to be done on claims made by the applicant to the State labor department and these claims are reviewed by the Adjudicator.

PLEASE SOMEONE HELP ME QUICKLY ILL GIVE BRAINLIEST!!!

Answers

Answer:

I don't know the ans please search on the Google you will get

And don't forget to mark me as brainlest please guys and follow me back please please please I will follow u back really

(a)Why did Federalists favor the Alien and Sedition acts? (b) Why did Republicans oppose these laws?

Answers

A) The Federalist liked the Alien and Sedition Acts for which it protected the President at the time (Adams) who was a federalist. 
B) Republicans opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts for the reason that they were the majority that were jailed or punished. Many Republicans claimed that the Alien and Sedition Acts took away the 1st Amendment, which is Freedom of Speech. 

How do the Elastic Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Supremacy Clause, potentially challenge the power of the States?

Answers

Answer:

The Elastic Clause, also known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Supremacy Clause are all provisions within the United States Constitution that have the potential to challenge the power of the states. The Elastic Clause, found in Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers. This clause has been interpreted broadly by the courts, allowing Congress to expand its authority beyond what is explicitly stated in the Constitution. As a result, it can potentially encroach on areas traditionally reserved for state governments, such as education, healthcare, and criminal justice.

The Necessary and Proper Clause is closely related to the Elastic Clause and gives Congress the authority to enact laws that are necessary and proper for executing its enumerated powers. This clause has been used to justify federal laws that may impinge on state powers, as long as they are deemed essential for carrying out federal responsibilities. For example, Congress has relied on this clause to establish agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and pass legislation regulating interstate commerce.

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI of the Constitution, establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land. This means that if there is a conflict between federal and state law, federal law prevails. The Supremacy Clause can challenge state power by limiting their ability to pass laws that contradict or undermine federal legislation. It ensures uniformity in areas where federal authority is exercised.

Overall, these clauses can challenge the power of states by granting expansive authority to Congress and establishing federal law as supreme over state law. They provide a legal framework for the federal government to assert control over certain policy areas traditionally within state jurisdiction. However, it is important to note that these clauses have been subject to interpretation by courts over time, and their impact on state power can vary depending on specific cases and circumstances.

Explanation:

My dog has been begging at the table and even stealing food from our toddler. I'll admit it is my fault because I had been giving them scraps from time to time, but it's getting out of hand and I would like to extinguish the begging as quickly as I can. The final point made about factors that influence extinction on the linked page suggests that youa. Scream and bang things because the dog must surely understand I have changed the rules and is doing this just to upset me.
b. Have a rational conversation with the dogs to explain why begging is no longer acceptable
c.Reinforce the dogs for laying down elsewhere while you are eating
d. Phase out the scraps over time with a variable interval schedule
e. Starve the dog so its own food will seem more appealing later

Answers

Answer: the best option is c. Reinforce the dogs for laying down elsewhere while you are eating.

Explanation:

Final answer:

The final point made about factors that influence extinction on the linked page suggests that you should remove the reinforcement for begging behavior, such as scraps of food, to extinguish the behavior over time.

Explanation:

Begging behavior in dogs can be a common problem, but it is important to address it to ensure the well-being of both the dog and the family. One effective method to extinguish begging behavior is through a process called extinction.

Extinction involves removing the reinforcement that the dog receives for begging, which eventually leads to the behavior diminishing over time. In this case, the reinforcement is the scraps of food that the dog receives from the table. By no longer giving the dog any scraps, the dog will learn that begging no longer results in a reward.

It is important to note that extinction can take time and consistency is key. It is crucial to avoid giving in to the dog's begging behavior, as even occasional reinforcement can prolong the extinction process. It may be helpful to establish clear rules and boundaries around mealtime, such as feeding the dog in a separate area or using a designated feeding schedule.

Additionally, it is important to avoid using punishment or negative reinforcement methods to address begging behavior. These methods can have adverse effects on the dog's behavior and well-being, and may even worsen the begging behavior in the long run.

Learn more about methods to extinguish beggingbehavior in dogs here:

brainly.com/question/31545917

#SPJ14

Governor Rick Perry holds the record for most special sessions called in one year. Which policy issue did these three special sessions deal with?

Answers

Answer:

For Congressional redistricting in 2003.

Explanation:

What are special sessions?

Special session amounts to legislative overtime. If there is a stalemate on some of the key issues in the government, a governor can decide to call for a special session. During special sessions, bills that are discussed should be on governor's agenda. Legislators have a period of 30 days to do their work, and it can be called for at any time.

Texas Redistricting

2003 Texas redistricting is a contraversional state plan for defining new Congresional districts. In 2002 Republicans won the control of the Texas state legislature for the first time in 130 years. Their plan was to work on establishing a majority in the House of Representatives seats from Texas, which was held by their own party. It is said that this redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act and was settled by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in a case called League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry in 2006. The Court ruled that only one District violated the aforementioned act.