During the Harding presidency, the Supreme Court acted:

brainliest is someone you pick by simply clicking a button. it only shows up if there are two people that answered your question, then you decide who answer more accurately with detail and explanation and you give that person the title "brainliest".

i hope this your understandings.

the first historical instance of china engaging in internationalism was during the han dynasty.[1] at the start of the han dynasty, the huns in the north were attacking the frontiers of han and trying to obtain riches. emperor wu of han wanted to gain an alliance with a country called dayuezhi so the two countries could join together and fight against the huns.[2] to obtain this alliance, emperor wu sent zhang qian to the west to establish economic and cultural connections.[2] history records that during the han dynasty there were four primary avenues of contact between china and europe. they included the northern land route, the central land route, the southern sea route, and the far southern sea route.[1] the most famous of these routes is the central land route, or the classical silk road, comprising a network of roads stretching from northwest china to the ports of syria and the black sea, which passed through the oasis of the turkestans and northern persia.[1] the silk road was significant for chinese emperors because it provided dominance over central asia by developing resources and provided new markets for the export of china's most valuable resources.[1]

        i'm fairly sure that the correct answers are 2 and 3.

        i used both my knowledge of world history and the process of elimination to obtain these answers. option 1 cannot be a possible selection because the mandate of heaven belongs to ancient chinese philosophical belief. option 4 sounds like it would benefit the region than detriment it. however, both 2 and 3 explain a potential reason for what could have contributed to the fall of the roman empire.

      hope this ! if i were you, i'd get a second opinion, because i haven't taken this course for a year. best of luck!

***websites that me understand the curriculum better last year are and ***

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.