1. How does the right to pursue happiness license Lepp's Medicinal Gardens?2. What is a libertarian argument against imprisoning Lepp?

The right to pursue happiness license Lepp's Medicinal Gardens as a result of the happiness from growing and smoking marijuana that Lepp derived.

It should be noted that libertarian argument against imprisoning Lepp is that he is doing his stuff on his own private property and his land.

A libertarian argument against imprisoning Lepp was basically that Lepp should not be disturbed since he can do his wishes on his land.

Learn more about Lepp's Medicinal Gardens at;

link

Find the explanation below.

Explanation:

1. The right to pursue happiness is one of the rights provided by law and it is in harmony with the right to freedom which implies that if individuals are free they should be able to pursue whatever that brings them happiness. In Edward Lepp's case growing marijuana in his farm brought no harm to him or complaints from others. So he believed that he was doing that which brought him happiness. This reasoning is ethical but the work Lepp did violated federal law.

2. Libertarian's believe that people have the right to exercise control over that which rightly belongs to them. Libertarian's in Lepp's case believe that Lepp had a right to his property in this case his farmland where he planted marijuana. And since no one was harmed by what he did, he was not supposed to be harassed and arrested by the police.

soothing tone) but quickly, the tone changes from a light tone to a grim one. by introducing disturbing word choices that are illogical.make a list of some of levertov’s images of war from both of her poems. how do her wordsaffect you? do you agree with her position on war? write a short response (at least 100 words) and support your answer with personal experience or your studiespoets can change the tone in a poem, and levertov does when the she refers to "delicate man . .whose eyes/are flowers that perceive the stars”. the word choices here are different. theimages began to show feelings of hope/potential. but this mood is interrupted with the dark oppressive words "entrails of still-alive babies" and "carcass-gulleys". levertov continues to switch tones by "the deep intelligence living at peace would have"—one is left with a sense of hope. i can connect with her words that humans can do better things than fight in war. we only have one life so dying in a war would be for no reason. also, i am a christian and in the bible, it says "thou shall not kill", and i strongly believe in that.people respond differently to satire—some like it, others don't get it. in at least 150 words, describe what you think of goines's narrative essay. discuss whether you think his position is convincing.the satire kept people's attention, rather than just rambling. instead of being dead serious, he adds humor to enlighten it. i think he did a good job of proving his point, but convincing people to stray from their own beliefs is hard, and satire can be offensive to that person. overall i think that goines's narrative essay was good because narrative essay create deeper understanding. i also like that the narrative essay is in first-person. the essay was filled with diction and word choice to let you know that the essay is going to be witty yet satirical. his point was to write  

explanation:

question 1:

senate and house of representatives

i would try to answer the second question but i’m not 100% positive but i hope i