The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. What type of fallacy does this argument represent?

hasty generalization
ad populum
begging the claim
genetic fallacy

for me, balancing all your work/homework is the hardest part in high school and the exams.

- "a nonrestrictive clause functions as a modifier to a noun (that is an object, person or concept). these clauses can be described by the following three options: it is set off by comas, it contains a subject and a verbs and it adds nonessential information to the sentence.

for example, in "here is bill gates, who confounded microsoft software company" we can identify "who confounded microsoft software company" as a nonrestrictive clause modifying the noun bill gates. this clause can be describes as a nonrestrictive clause because it is separated by a comma, it adds nonessential information to identify who bill gates is and it must contain both a subject (who) and a verb (confounded)."

ok so like i went to wiki and looked up the (constitution x new "hammystan")and it showed me the picture it highlights new hampshire and says first and second session and than it says that they hit up the u.s and was like "ey dude that paper u sent us was adopted it bro thx" xd syays it all on wiki/the pic

i dont really like reading so i guess other people might not like reading either so   imma put the answer in bold italics