A tarrif is a tax on what

Situation #2: imagine that you are a newspaper editor in columbus, oh in 1863. the civil war has been dragging on for more than two years already and shows no signs of ending soon. you are aware that many black males are willing to enlist in the union army but you fear that they may be mistreated and abused by the majority of soldiers on either side in this war. write a one-page letter (double spaced) editorial for tomorrow's edition of the newspaper. the topic is military service in the union army by free african american males. in your editorial, take a clear position for or against having black men join the fight. be sure to give reasons for whatever position you choose to take.

Tracey is a financial planner who received his cfp designation. tracey does not have any other designations or licenses. although tracey's expertise is investment planning, he is anxious to expand his client base and is willing to assist clients with any area of financial planning. over the last month tracey engaged in the following activities with troy, a new client. a. during the initial meeting, tracey collected personal data about troy including the estate planning documents troy had previously executed. b. during the second meeting, tracey recommended the use of a trust to fulfill some of troy's estate planning goals. c. troy called tracey one afternoon and asked if tracey could explain the probate process to him, which tracey promptly did. d. tracey downloaded a copy of a generic will from the internet, filled in troy's information and gave the document to troy to be executed. of the activities above, which would be considered the unauthorized practice of law?

Which best explains why the supreme court’s decision in plessy v. ferguson was unconstitutional? the supreme court’s ruling allowed states to deny equal protection to any person within its jurisdiction. since the 14th amendment did not make concessions for people born outside the us, the supreme court’s decision could not be applied. the supreme court’s decision gave individual states the freedom to make their own laws in relation to non-whites. since segregation laws did not provide equal protections or liberties to non-whites, the ruling was not consistent with the 14th amendment.