The 1st Homework assignment will be a "Free Write" on the various elements you will read, watch and listen to on some of the major empires that arose from the devastation brought by the "Black Death." In particular, these were:The Ming Dynasty in China -- will be talked about in lecture and via the Crash Course on 15th century MarinersThe Ottoman Empire in Turkey and the Middle East -- in textbook readings, primary documents, will be talked about a little in lecture and in the Crash Course on Venice and the OttomansThe Mughal Empire in India -- in textbook readings and in the Crash Course on the MughalsThe Safavid Empire in Persia (Iran) -- in the textbook readingsEarly Modern Russia -- in the Crash Course on Early RussiaWhat I want you to do in your Free Write Homework assignment is to discuss AT LEAST TWO of these new empires in the context of the post-Black Death Eurasian world with the Ottomans being REQUIRED. In particular, talk about a couple things you find interesting about those two empires and WHY you find them interesting. When doing this, reference specific materials from the course (i.e. lecture, videos, textbook, or primary documents). Write about 125-150 words or so for this assignment.

Do you believe a Supreme Court nominee's political views should play a role in his/her approval by the Senate?I believe that a Supreme Court nominee politician view should play a role in their approval by the senate, because the senate has the responsibility of giving the nominee that fair consideration to a timely hearing and also their own timely vote. It is deeply troubling that the majority republican would decide not to consider fulfill their constitutional duties. With the republicans citing to a vague precedent nominations, it is thus not considered as an election year. The claims by democrats are that republicans should have the constitutional responsibility in at least holding a hearing and a vote on a nominee (Choper, 2013). The problem with studying the issue is that there are relatively few examples because it is believed that the Supreme Court justice has lifetime tenure. History has less number of nominees, though it is indicated that the majority of the nominees are highly considered by the senate, with a few vacancies examples taking place and considered in the election year. Even though the examples are found to be few, the rights of the republicans are well supported when they are to handle or not handle the nomination as per their wishes. It is the duty of senate to either confirm or reject presidential nominations as an imperative of his nominate to duty, in such that has been heretofore settled in government practice and that it is expediently now not or properly altered. Senators have every right in their deciding as to whether to block nominations in their consideration to the ideology of the nominee and to the judicial philosophy, which is not just their professional qualification. There is nothing in the constitution that forbids those considerations. The responsible senators should scrutinize attributes that will as well have major effects on the future of the nominee’s performance to the bench. Some believe that the president after winning elections should have completed his authority of appointing their nominees and senate in examining whether to or not intellectually justify the capabilities and the all around good guys. One gotten beyond the intellectuals and the personal characters that should not as further question the confirmation of the judge.               I agree with this view, believing that the constitutional calls for senate advise consent. I also believe that meaningful advice and those consents include the judge’s philosophy examination ideologies, and records. The nominee’s judicial objections philosophy led to the opposed nomination and ad vocation of the filibuster. The reasonable senates don’t expect judicial philosophy nominee matching every way owned and should not only let their decision. I think it would be a great mistake ignoring the extremely important nominee’s aspect record (Epstein, 2006).agree with this statement in mumimum of 200 words why.

Write a 200 words or more on why agree with this paragraph.Cabinet members are nominated by the President, then confirmed by the Senate.  They can also be dismissed at any time by the President, this leads me to a very simple question. Isn’t this a decisive conflict of interests?  In order to maintain their title as Secretary, or Attorney General, they must to some degree ensure they keep on the good side of the President of the United States.  Depending on the man or woman holding the office, a mere difference of opinion may lead to conflict followed by dismissal, taking for granted this would be a more extreme situation.  So in the game of self-interests that is politics, it is most prudent to maintain a cordial relationship with the boss.  While this is true in every work place, the nation and worldwide ramifications of Cabinet level positions should not be crippled to the opinions of one man, for no matter how wise he or she may be there are always topics in which they will be ignorant of in some aspects.  In addition to this during any debate or argument both sides will have valid points and detractors, therefore producing the best result will be nearly unfailingly a compromise.There are 15 different official cabinet members, 16 if the Vice-President is to be included.  These 16 people maintain a vast variety of jobs, ranging from agriculture to homeland security, and also have a weekly meeting with the President to inform him or her of the current state of the individual departments.  The President will ultimately receive the criticism for every mistake that he or she knew nothing about, but conversely would be showered in glory for the achievements which the groundwork was painstakingly laid out by another.  So in regards to this it would be logical for the President to at least agree with the plans set forth by the Cabinet members.  However, because they are the subject matter expert of their particular department, the Cabinet members should be almost fully autonomous with any policy regarding their department.  Furthermore, any aspect outside of their area of expertise should not have any bearing on their department, unless it is encroaching into theirs e.g. the Department of Treasury will be in every departments’ checkbooks and budgets.  In conclusion I believe that the Cabinet members, while not beyond reproach, should be permitted to have an opinion differing from, and in some cases conflicting with, the President of the United States of America, as debates with muliple strong opinions frequently reach the strongest conclusion.Email AuthorSelect: All NoneMessage Actions   OK