Those living in a nation-state are often expected to do all the following, EXCEPT;

How was the nation of islam different from other civil rights organizations

In the decision for dred scott vs.sanford, (1857) in which a slave petitioned for his freedom in a st. louis court, on the grounds that his owner had taken him into free territory, and thus he ought no longer be regarded as possessing "slave" status, but should be regarded as a free man, the court decided as follows (excerpt): "in the circuit courts of the united states, the record must show that the case is one in which by the constitution and laws of the united states, the court had jurisdiction--and if this does not appear, and the court gives judgment either for plaintiff or defendant, it is error, and the judgment must be reversed by this court--and the parties cannot by consent waive the objection to the jurisdiction of the circuit court. a free negro of the african race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the constitution of the united states. when the constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the states as members of the community which constituted the state, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizen.' consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. and not being "citizens" within the meaning of the constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the united states, and the circuit court has not jurisdiction in such a suit. the only two clauses in the constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves. since the adoption of the constitution of the united states, no state can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the united states, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument." why does the court say that the petitioning party in this case had no right to sue for his freedom? a) because he is too young b) because he is from a different state c) because he is "of the african race" with enslaved ancestors d) because he is, properly speaking, within his owner's jurisdiction

This excerpt demonstrates a character vs. self conflict because paul describes read the excerpt from the land. "cassie, you know 'bout mitchell? " i asked her. "course i know about mitchell," she answered. "why're you letting him beat up on you? " "i'm not letting himl" exclaimed in outrage. "you thinking i'm liking him beating up on me? " "well, if you're not, you'd better make him stop." "well, i'm trying." "well, you'd better try harder." "i've tried fighting back, but he's too strong. thing is, i don't know how to stop him." his personal struggle with how to handle mitchell. his struggle to get cassie to him with mitchell. his conversation with cassie about handling mitchell. his interactions with both cassie and mitchell. mark this and return save and exit next submit