What did the Army ask Oveta Culp Hobby to do?​

Hope you like it

Explanation:

Oveta Culp Hobby (January 19, 1905 – August 16, 1995) was the first secretary of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, first director of the Women's Army Corps, and a chairperson of the board of the Houston Post.

Culp was born on January 19, 1905, in Killeen, Texas, to Texas lawyer and legislator Isaac William Culp and Emma Elizabeth Hoover. She briefly attended Mary Hardin Baylor College for Women, and attended law classes at South Texas College of Law and Commerce. She did not graduate from either school. She went on to study law at the University of Texas Law School,[1] but she did not formally enroll and therefore never received a degree.[2] Starting at age 21, for several years she served as parliamentarian of the Texas House of Representatives and was an unsuccessful candidate for the legislature in 1930[3] before beginning a journalism career in 1931, at age 26.

Oveta Culp Hobby (January 19, 1905 – August 16, 1995) was the first secretary of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, first director of the Women's Army Corps, and a chairperson of the board of the Houston Post.

Culp was born on January 19, 1905, in Killeen, Texas, to Texas lawyer and legislator Isaac William Culp and Emma Elizabeth Hoover. She briefly attended Mary Hardin Baylor College for Women, and attended law classes at South Texas College of Law and Commerce. She did not graduate from either school. She went on to study law at the University of Texas Law School,[1] but she did not formally enroll and therefore never received a degree.[2] Starting at age 21, for several years she served as parliamentarian of the Texas House of Representatives and was an unsuccessful candidate for the legislature in 1930[3] before beginning a journalism career in 1931, at age 26.

Explanation:

the catholic church withhold people's access to the bible during the middle ages.

people could go to church and listen to the teachings, but it was absolutely forbidden to own and/or read the books of both the old and new testaments. it was also prohibited to translate the books (which where originally in biblical hebrew) to any other language.

this was done so the church could remain in control of what their teachings were and to enhance their importance and power, while also being able to judge people's actions through information that was unavailable for the general public.

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