Considering the complementary base pairing rules of nucleic…
Questions
Cоnsidering the cоmplementаry bаse pаiring rules оf nucleic acids, the following nucleic acid bond pairings would occur in the replication of DNA. There may be more than one correct answer. Points are deducted for incorrect answers.
Essаy Prоmpt: Anаlyze the events surrоunding the оverthrow of the Kingdom of Hаwai‘i in 1893 and the subsequent annexation by the United States. Using the provided documents, examine the constitutional legality involved in the overthrow, the role of U.S. government officials, and how history has judged the actions of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i. Document 1 Source: Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution, September 17, 1787 New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Document 2 Source: Excerpt from Supreme Court case majority opinion from Rose v. Himeley, 1808. Of its own jurisdiction, so far as it depends on municipal rules, the court of a foreign nation must judge, and its decision must be respected. But if it exercises a jurisdiction which, according to the law of nations, its sovereign could not confer, however available its sentences may be within the dominions of the prince from whom the authority is derived, they are not regarded by foreign nations. It is repugnant to every idea of proceeding in rem* to act against a thing which is not in the power of the sovereign under whose authority the court proceeds, and no nation will admit that its property should be absolutely changed, while remaining in its own possession, by a sentence which is entirely ex parte.** *Against a thing **One-sided legal action Document 3 Source: Excerpt from Supreme Court case majority opinion from The Appollon Incident,* 1824. The municipal laws of one nation do not extend in their operation beyond its own territory except as regards its own citizens. A seizure for the breach of the municipal laws of one nation cannot be made within the territory of another. It seems that the right of visitation and search, for enforcing the revenue laws of a nation, may be exercised beyond the territorial jurisdiction upon the high seas and on vessels belonging to such nation or bound to its ports. A municipal seizure cannot be justified or excused upon the ground of probable cause unless under the special provisions of some statute. *French ship captured by the US forces outside US territorial waters Document 4 Source: Protest letter from Queen Lili‘uokalani to the US President and Congress, January 17, 1893. I, Liliuokalani of Hawaii, by the will of God named heir apparent on the tenth day of April, A.D. 1877, and by the grace of God Queen of the Hawaiian Islands on the seventeenth day of January, A.D. 1893, do hereby protest against the ratification of a certain treaty. I declare such a treaty to be an act of wrong toward the native and part-native people of Hawaii, an invasion of the rights of the ruling chiefs, in violation of international rights both toward my people and toward friendly nations with whom they have made treaties, the perpetuation of the fraud whereby the constitutional government was overthrown, and, finally, an act of gross injustice to me. Because the official protests made by me on the seventeenth day of January, 1893, to the so-called Provisional Government were signed by me, and received by said government with the assurance that the case was referred to the United States of America for arbitration. Because neither the above-named commission nor the government which sends it has ever received any such authority from the registered voters of Hawaii, but derives its assumed powers from the so-called committee of public safety, organized on or about the seventeenth day of January, 1893, said committee being composed largely of persons claiming American citizenship, and not one single Hawaiian was a member thereof, or in any way participated in the demonstration leading to its existence. Because my people, about forty thousand in number, have in no way been consulted by those, three thousand in number, who claim the right to destroy the independence of Hawaii. My people constitute four-fifths of the legally qualified voters of Hawaii, and excluding those imported for the demands of labor, about the same proportion of the inhabitants. Because said treaty ignores, not only the civic rights of my people, but, further, the hereditary property of their chiefs. Of the 4,000,000 acres composing the territory said treaty offers to annex, 1,000,000 or 915,000 acres has in no way been heretofore recognized as other than the private property of the constitutional monarch, subject to a control in no way differing from other items of a private estate. Because said treaty ignores, not only all professions of perpetual amity and good faith made by the United States in former treaties with the sovereigns representing the Hawaiian people, but all treaties made by those sovereigns with other and friendly powers, and it is thereby in violation of international law. Therefore I, Liliuokalani of Hawaii, do hereby call upon the President of that nation, to whom alone I yielded my property and my authority, to withdraw said treaty (ceding said Islands) from further consideration. I ask the honorable Senate of the United States to decline to ratify said treaty, and I implore the people of this great and good nation, from whom my ancestors learned the Christian religion, to sustain their representatives in such acts of justice and equity as may be in accord with the principles of their fathers, and to the Almighty Ruler of the universe, to him who judgeth righteously, I commit my cause. Liliuokalani Document 5 Source: Letter to US Senate from US President Benjamin Harrison to annex the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, February 15, 1893 I do not deem it necessary to discuss at any length the conditions which have resulted in this decisive action. It has been the policy of the Administration not only to respect but to encourage the continuance of an independent government in the Hawaiian Islands so long as it afforded suitable guaranties for the protection of life and property and maintained a stability and strength that gave adequate security against the domination of any other power. The overthrow of the monarchy was not in any way promoted by this Government, but had its origin in what seems to have been a reactionary and revolutionary policy on the part of Queen Liliuokalani, which put in serious peril not only the large and preponderating interests of the United States in the islands, but all foreign interests, and, indeed, the decent administration of civil affairs and the peace of the islands. It is quite evident that the monarchy had become effete and the Queen's Government so weak and inadequate as to be the prey of designing and unscrupulous persons. The restoration of Queen Liliuokalani to her throne is undesirable, if not impossible, and unless actively supported by the United States would be accompanied by serious disaster and the disorganization of all business interests. The influence and interest of the United States in the islands must be increased and not diminished. Document 6 Source: Excerpt from Blount Report, 1893* The dethronement of Queen Liliuokalani and the establishment of an oligarchy on the island of Oahu, “until terms of union with the United States of America have been negotiated and agreed upon,” were effected on the afternoon of Tuesday, January 17, 1893, in the presence of a considerable body of the naval forces of the United States, armed with Gatling guns, and stationed in the immediate vicinity and in plain sight of the Palace and Government Building, where the so-called revolution was consummated…. The Committee of Safety, at whose request Mr. Stevens** summoned the troops, did not prefer that request as American citizens. It could not, for only five of its thirteen members owed allegiance to and were under the protection of the United States. By the admission of several of their own number to Mr. Blount, they were engaged in plotting the overthrow of the government and the establishment of themselves in power secretly until they could transfer the Islands to the United States, and Minister Stevens was in their full confidence at the time they asked for, and he ordered, the landing of the troops. They had been threatened with arrest by the government they planned to overthrow, and he had promised to protect them. The troops of the Boston were the only means he had of keeping good that promise, and he did not scruple to use them for it. *Blount Report (1893): President Cleveland's inquiry into the Hawaiʻi overthrow. **John L Stevens, US Minister to Hawai‘i. Document 7 Source: Cleveland's Dec. 18, 1893 letter to Congress withdrawing the Hawaiʻi annexation treaty. When the present Administration entered upon its duties, the Senate had under consideration a treaty providing for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the territory of the United States. Surely under our Constitution and laws the enlargement of our limits is a manifestation of the highest attribute of sovereignty, and if entered upon as an Executive act all things relating to the transaction should be clear and free from suspicion. Additional importance attached to this particular treaty of annexation because it contemplated a departure from unbroken American tradition in providing for the addition to our territory of islands of the sea more than 2,000 miles removed from our nearest coast…. I conceived it to be my duty, therefore, to withdraw the treaty from the Senate for examination, and meanwhile to cause an accurate, full, and impartial investigation to be made of the facts attending the subversion of the constitutional Government of Hawaii and the installation in its place of the Provisional Government. I selected for the work of investigation the Hon. James H. Blount, of Georgia, whose service of eighteen years as a member of the House of Representatives and whose experience as chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs in that body, and his consequent familiarity with international topics, joined with his high character and honorable reputation, seemed to render him peculiarly fitted for the duties entrusted to him. His report detailing his action under the instructions given to him and the conclusions derived from his investigation accompanies this message. These conclusions do not rest for their acceptance entirely upon Mr. Blount's honesty and ability as a man, nor upon his acumen and impartiality as an investigator. They are accompanied by the evidence upon which they are based, which evidence is also herewith transmitted, and from which it seems to me no other deductions could be reached than those arrived at by the commissioner. Document 8 Source: Article from The Daily Independent, Elko, NV, July 12, 1897 Document 9 Source: Articles from The Independent, Honolulu, HI, September 13, 1897 Document 10 Source: Joint Resolution of Congress to Annex the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, passed July 7, 1898 Document 10 (continued) Document 11 Source: Queen Lili‘uokalani’s letter protesting the overthrow to the US Congress, December 19, 1898. Document 12 Source: Westel Woodbury Willoughby, The Constitutional Law of the United States, 1910 The incorporation of one sovereign State, such as was Hawaii before annexation, in the territory of another, is essentially a matter falling within the domain of international relations, and, therefore, beyond the reach of legislative acts. The constitutionality of the annexation of Hawaii, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act. Only by means of treaties, it was asserted, can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force, confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature it was enacted. Document 13 Source: Joint Resolution of Congress Apology Resolution, November 23, 1993