Answer:
He did not say anything but looked at the bags against the wall of the station. there were labels on them from all the hotels where they had spent nights is the correct answer.
Explanation:
Answer:
They are the basic unit of life!
Explanation:
Basically, without these millions of cells that us humans and animals have, we couldn’t exist. They hold so many core features that make up any living thing on this earth. Cells are the structural, functional, and biological units of all living beings.
Hope this helps!
In the book "Night", by Elie Wiesel, Wiesel is recounting his memory of the German version of the gulag as well as his experience later in Auschwitz's labor camp, the hardships he faced, and his loss of his family as well as his identity. At the end, we see that his experience changed how he thought and acted, and the event of his Dad's death haunted him throughout his life. (This is because he failed to save his dad.)
Answer:
People like to cause to much drama and bring people down people always find a way to get someone canceled
Explanation:
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.