Why might carl sandburg have placed an emphasis on politeness among the animals in the committee of sixty six and in the interactions the animals have with humans in "how the animals lost their tails and got them back traveling from philadelphia to medicine hat"?

1) to show that animals are more polite than humans

2) to poke fun at the extreme politeness of the animals

3) to teach children how to interact with adults

4) to teach children how to interact with animals

Which excerpt from tinker v. des moines shows how precedent support an argument? a. "as we shall discuss, the wearing of armbands in the circumstances of this case was entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. it was closely akin to 'pure speech' which, we have repeatedly held, is entitled to comprehensive protection under the first amendment. cf. cox v. louisiana, 379 u.s. 536, 555 (1965); adderley v. florida, 385 u.s. 39 (1966)." b. "while the absence of obscene remarks or boisterous and loud disorder perhaps justifies the court's statement that the few armband students did not actually 'disrupt' the classwork, i think the record overwhelmingly shows that the armbands did exactly what the elected school officials and principals foresaw they would." c. "i, for one, am not fully persuaded that school pupils are wise enough, even with this court's expert from washington, to run the 23,390 public school systems [n4] in our 50 states." d. "under our constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle, but not in fact. freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots."

Hurry 50pts read the excerpt from justice curtis’s dissenting opinion, then answer the question that follows. slavery, being contrary to natural right, is created only by municipal law. this is not only plain in itself, and agreed by all writers on the subject, but is inferable from the constitution, and has been explicitly declared by this court. the constitution refers to slaves as “persons held to service in one state, under the laws thereof.” . . . . it was certainly understood by the convention which framed the constitution, and has been so understood ever since, that, under the power to regulate commerce, congress could prohibit the importation of slaves; and the exercise of the power was restrained till 1808. a citizen of the united states owns slaves in cuba, and brings them to the united states, where they are set free by the legislation of congress. does this legislation deprive him of his property without due process of law? if so, what becomes of the laws prohibiting the slave trade? if not, how can a similar regulation respecting a territory violate the fifth amendment of the constitution? . . for these reasons, i am of opinion that so much of the several acts of congress as prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude within that part of the territory of wisconsin . . were constitutional and valid laws. –dissenting opinion on dred scott v. sandford, justice benjamin curtis which evidence best supports curtis’s opinion that dred scott should be free because he lived in a free territory? check all that apply. “the constitution refers to slaves as ‘persons held to service in one state’” “the convention which framed the constitution . . has . . the power to regulate commerce.” “a citizen of the united states owns slaves in cuba.” “does this legislation deprive him of his property without due process of law? ” “acts of congress as prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude within that part of the territory of wisconsin . . were constitutional and valid laws.”

Select the indicate quotation that correctly sequences the verbs