Think about how state laws would be affected if the entire bill of rights were incorporated. would someone who felt that states should have the freedom to make their own laws support total incorporation or selective incorporation? why? (1 point)

Someone who felt that states should have the freedom to make their own laws would support selective incorporation, as the incorporation of the Bill of Rights in its entirety would go against the liberties of the states in the matters of the establishment of their own laws.

State laws might not be affected by incorporating part of the Bill of Rights.

So selective incorporation of Bill of Rights by states would help people protect their civil liberties.

for many centuries there were important factors which the economies of the muslim empires developed increasingly. they applied economic procedures in production, investment, finance, taxation and property. they used to tax certain goods (for example: harvest), they charged interest on money lent, they signed contracts with merchants; they relied on a common currency, and they used checks as well as promissory notes. with the money collected by means of taxation, the government provided the needy with an income. in addition, trading networks covered huge distances, so far regions started to have contact and exchange goods. this trade network covered areas of asia, africa and europe.

hello,

your answer is ready

i believe its either the first or third option but i'm leaning more towards the third option:

the first excerpt makes a logical appeal, while the second excerpt makes an emotional appeal.

your pal

~papaguy