Why did the translator choose this passage to include in his collection of aztec writings ? what historical inference does the translator wish to offer the reader ?

Explanation:

In his letters, Cortes tries not to miss any vital information and tries to report all the details about the city. His descriptions make his writing a primary source. Cortes chose certain topics which makes his writing audience-oriented. He also mentions the knowledge about the geology of the area because it was the indicator of life and death for early conquerors. Additionally, Cortes describes the beauty of the city, its wealth, rare objects, including the barbarity and ritual abuse of Aztec religion.   

The effect the sight of Spanish Conquistadores had on the Aztec people.

Explanation:

Miguel León-Portilla (1926-2019), was a Mexican historian who specialized in research of ancient Aztec culture. His most famous work "The Broken Spears: The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico" (1959) introduces the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire from the point of view of the Aztec people. When the Spanish Conquistadores first arrived, they brought with them a series of items Aztec people were not familiar with, and they were deeply impressed by what they saw: gunpowder and cannons ("a thing like ball of stone comes out of its entrails"), iron armor, and horses ("deer"). The intent of the translator is for the reader to understand how deeply impressed the Aztecs were, and how they tried to describe these unknown items in terms familiar to them.

citizens united v. federal election commission, case in which the u.s. supreme court on january 21, 2010, ruled (5–4) that laws that prevented corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for independent “electioneering communications” (political advertising) violated the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. in so doing the court invalidated section 203 of the federal bipartisan campaign reform act of 2002 (bcra)—also known as the mccain-feingold act for its sponsors, sen. john mccain and sen. russ feingold—as well as section 441(b) of the federal election campaign act of 1971 (feca), which the bcra had amended. the court also overturned in whole or in part two previous supreme court rulings: austin v. michigan chamber of commerce (1990) and mcconnell v. federal election commission (2003).

immediately perceived as historically important, the decision generated intense controversy outside the court. some hailed it as a resounding victory for freedom of speech, while others criticized it as an overreaching attempt to rewrite campaign finance law. among the critics was pres. barack obama, who remarked in his state of the union address in the house of representatives one week later that the decision would “open the floodgates for special interests…to spend without limit in our elections.” his criticism provoked one of the supreme court justices in attendance, samuel a. alito, to break decorum by mouthing the words “not true.”

explanation:

i need to see the answer to answer the question