1. If money , fear or people’s judgements were not factors, what I wish to BE in my life? 2. If money , fear or people’s judgements were not factors, what I wish to DO in my life?

3. If money , fear or people’s judgements were not factors, what I wish to HAVE in my life?

If money, fear or people's judgments were not factors, then I wished to become a pilot, do what I love and pursue my dreams without the need to try to make ends meet, merely by working in some meager income jobs. I wished to have the stability to make my own decisions and have the resources to focus and work for my dream.

Explanation:

1. If the issue of money, fear, or judgment from people isn't a factor, the one thing I wished to be in my life I to become a pilot. Not only does money pose a problem for me, but the means to attain such heights also requires me to go against my family's belief of a female responsible for the house. The act of pursuing such a profession will only lead to more contempt, which is 'doing what a man is supposed to do', thereby a form of demeaning the man's role in society.

2. What I wished to do in my life is to be able to make and take my own decisions without the need to think about what the people will say behind my back, or the means to make such decisions and also the fear of being ostracized.

3. Lastly, if money, people's judgment, and fear were not a factor, then I wished to have the freedom to be who I am, do what I like, and have all the means necessary to make my dreams come true. I wished to have the stability to do what I love, with no problems with money or people's opinions.  

compensation; complaints

explanation:

some employers provide "severance compensation" to employees whose employment has been terminated due to no fault of the employee

mark brainliest

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is