Please help 3 reasons why the Marbury v. Madison case is so important with facts (can yall add where you found it?

When zhang qin went to explore west, he brought back stories of

Study the following facts: 1915—state education committee banned the french language in public schools (corporal punishment was allowable to deter the act of speaking french). 1916—compulsory attendance: all louisiana children must attend school until the age of 16 years. 1918—louisiana legislative act 114 stated that german could not be spoken on streets, taught in schools, or printed in newspapers (reaction to german aggression in world war i). 1921—repeal of act 114 . 1921—constitutional amendment stated languages other than english were prohibited in public schools. from the information above, answer the following questions to yourself. how did the above legislative laws affect the ethnic cultures generations later? describe the opportunity cost in economic and cultural terms of these legislative decisions. should efforts be made to preserve or revive the cultural traits of unique ethnic cultures in louisiana? assignment research current efforts and organizations that are actively engaged in cultural preservation. create a poster or powerpoint® describing the methods and strategies being employed in the preservation efforts (e.g., french immersion, german fest, codofil, cafa).

Ahusband who believed that his wife was having an affair with his brother hired an arsonist to burn down the brother's house. they planned for the husband to take his brother to a ballgame so that the arsonist would be able to set the house on fire without detection. after the husband and brother left for the ballgame, however, the arsonist decided to abandon the plan and immediately left town without doing anything further. when the husband returned from the ballgame with the brother, he saw the house still standing and blurted out what was supposed to have happened. the husband and the arsonist were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit arson. at the arsonist's trial, his attorney argued that he was innocent of the conspiracy because he decided not to go ahead with the plan, and nothing criminal had in fact occurred.at common law, how should a jury find the arsonist? a not guilty of conspiracy, because going to a ballgame is not a criminal overt act.b not guilty of conspiracy, because the husband, not the arsonist, committed the overt act.c guilty, because the husband executed his part of the plan.d guilty, because the arsonist agreed to set the brother's house on fire.