He only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, the women are citizens; and no state has a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or immunities. Hence, every discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the several states is today null and void, precisely as is every one against Negroes.

Anthony most likely concludes her speech in this manner because she hopes to

inspire all citizens to fight for their right to vote.
persuade the audience that important causes are worth fighting for.
encourage the audience to question laws that are outdated or that no longer apply.
convince the audience that women are entitled to the same rights as men.

Anthony most likely concludes her speech in this manner because she hopes to convince the audience that women are entitled to the same rights as men.

Explanation:

It can be seen in this passage, Anthony was trying to protect women's right by implying that they are also citizens and their privileges and immunities should not be curtailed by any laws. And in the conclusion, she did also mention the term "discrimination against women" (refers to any actions that refuse opportunities, privileges to a person (or a group) because of gender as female) and express the objection to that to show the advocacy for women's right.

jacksonian era promoted strength of the presidency and executive branch at the expense of congress. it also sought to broaden the public's participation in government. the jacksonian's demanded to have elected judges, instead of appointed judges, and rewrote many state constitutions to reflect the new values. hope this ! if you did find it would you mind giving me brainliest? : )

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.