How is the federal government able to be involved in education when the Constitution reserves that right to the states?

New York v. US, 488 U.S. 1041 (1992) basically provides
that where the federal government is willing to pay for an inititave it wishes to
impliment, it can financially incentivize cooperation of state
legislatures.

I assume that you are determining that
education is a power reserved to the states because it isn't explicitly mentioned in the
constitution and you are literally reading the 10th ammendment. The Tenth ammendment is
a bit more nuanced than it appears on its face though:

"It
is in this sense that the tenth ammendment "states but a truism that all is retained
which has not been surrendered." United States
v. Darby,  href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?312+100">312 U.S.
100, 124 (1941). As Justice Story put it, "[t]his amendment is a mere
affirmation of what, upon any just reasoning, is a necessary rule of interpreting the
constitution. Being an instrument of limited and enumerated powers, it follows
irresistibly, that what is not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to the state
authorities." 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 752
(1833). This has been the Court's consistent understanding: "The States unquestionably
do retai[n] a significant measure of sovereign authority . . . to the extent that the
Constitution has not divested them of their original powers and transferred those powers
to the Federal Government." Garcia v. San Antonio
Metropolitan Transit Authority, supra, at 549 (internal
quotation marks omitted)." quoting New York v. US 488 U.S. 1041 (1992),
at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-543.ZO.html.

In
reality, the only power that was explicitly understood by the framers to be reserved to
the states is police power (the authoriy to protect the health, safety, and morality of
individuals). That isn't an absoloute authority, but generally police power is what the
tenth ammendment refers to.

In Things Fall Apart, in what ways do you think Okonkwo's second wife respects and disrespects her husband?

Ekwefi, Okonkwo's second wife, fell in love with Okonkwo
years ago at a wrestling match. Ekwefi was considered the village beauty. She was
impressed by Okonkwo's great wrestling abilities. She left her husband to be Okonkwo's
wife. She respected Okonkwo more than her husband at the time. She so desired to be
Okonkwo's wife. Because of Okonkwo's great strength and masculine features, she admired
him. She was overcome with love for him.

After becoming
Okonkwo's wife, Ekwefi suffered from losing children. She had only Ezinma to survive.
Along with her sorrow of losing children, Ekwefi has to deal with Okonkwo's anger
issues. He loses his temper quite often, especially during religious ceremonies when he
cannot work. During the Yam Festival, Okonkwo beats Ekwefi, accusing her of killing a
banana tree.

readability="10">

Okonkwo is edgy as his family prepares for the
feast because he would rather be working in the farm. He accuses Ekwefi, his second
wife, of killing a banana tree. He beats Ekwefi and leaves her crying with Ezinma, her
only daughter. The beating serves as an outlet for Okonkwo’s
anger.

She loses respect for
Okonkwo as she cries. Ekwefi also becomes angry at Okonkwo for beating her. She mutters
something about his gun not working. She is trying to insult his hunting. Oknokwo fires
his gun at Ekwefi and misses. In moments like these, Ekwefi has no respect for Okonkwo.
She retaliates when he beats her:

readability="7">

Okonkwo picks up his rusty gun, and Ekwefi
mutters something about guns that never shoot. Okonkwo hears the remark and pulls the
trigger. His shot misses
Ekwefi.

No doubt, Ekwefi has
disrespect for Okonkwo when he beats her. She is not impressed with his anger. Although
she was once attracted to Okonkwo's strength, she is not in awe of him as she once was.
Okonkwo's anger causes his family to fear him. This fear, however, is not
respect.

Ekwefi has overcome much heartache, losing nine
children. She has learned to stand strong:

readability="7">

The years have been hard on her. She has become a
courageous and strong-willed woman, overcoming disappointment and bitterness in her
life.

No doubt, Ekwefi has
mixed emotions now that she is Okonkwo's wife. The strength that she was so attracted to
years ago is frightening when Okonkwo uses it against his wives and
children.

Can anyone describe the positive relationship of Leonato and Hero in Much Ado About Nothing?

This is a great question to think about, because Leonato
seems to present two paradoxical impressions in terms of his relationship with his one
and only child, Hero. In the infamous marriage scene of Act IV scene 1, for example, he
openly states that he wishes his daughter were dead, even going as far to say that he
hopes she is dead when she faints in shock and terror. Certainly the harshness of his
words and the way that he responds to her public shaming severely limits our impressions
of him as a good father to Hero. However, I would point you towards Act V scene 1, where
we see a very different side of Leonato. As he is talking to his brother, he expresses
his grief and his sadness at what has happened to his daughter. He
says:

My
griefs cry louder than
advertisement.

In addition he
states that in his "soul" he knows that Hero was "belied," and in response to his
brother's insistence that he lay aside his grief, points out the futile nature of
counsel at such times:

readability="19">

For, brother,
men

Can counsel and speak comfort to that
grief

Which they themselves not feel. But tasting
it,

Their counsel turns to passion, which
before

Would give preceptial medicine to
rage,

Fetter strong madness in a silken
thread,

Charm ache with air and agony with
words.

The Leonato that we
see in this scene, therefore, is very different from the Leonato that we saw in Act IV
scene 1. Perhaps the difference can be explained by the passing of time and the way that
has helped Leonato look upon the situation with mature reflection. Either way, he is
presented in this scene as a loving father who is overwhelmed with grief at the wrong
that has been done to his daughter and willing to fight for her
honour.

In The Invisible Man, why does Dr. Bledsoe expel the narrator from college?

Dr. Bledsoe, as the principal of the narrator's college,
of course has the power to expel the narrator. However, what triggers this expulsion is
when the narrator takes Mr. Norton, an important guest of the college, to the slave
quarters and to the Golden Day, even though the narrator was asked by Mr. Norton himself
to take him there. In rather a shocking speech, Dr. Bledsoe calls the narrator an
insulting word used to denigrate blacks, and then expells him, simultaneously slamming
down a shackle on his desk to emphasise his words. For Dr. Bledsoe, a black man himself,
to act in this way reinforces the way that racism and oppression does not only occur
between different ethnic groupings but also within ethnic groupings. In spite of the
obvious unfairness and injustice of this action, forgetting the insulting nature of it
for one moment, the narrator is told very clearly that he has no other option but to
accept his expulsion and leave.

What is C.J Stryver's physical description?A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens

Although there is no detailed physical description of the
obtrusive C. J. Stryver in A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens often
suggests that he is big and overbearing. There are often suggestions of his being rather
large and bullying in his manner, as often the phrase "shouldered himself" is used. For
example in Chapter 12 of Book the Second, "The Fellow of Delicacy," Mr. Stryver
shoulders his way from the Temple

readability="14">

bursting his full-blown way along the pavement,
to the jostlement of all weaker people, might have seen how safe and strong he
was....

So, he pushed open the door...stumbled down the two
steps, got past the two ancient cashiers, and shouldered himself into the musty back
closet where Mr. Lorry
sat....

In discussing his
chances of marrying Lucie, the usually discreet Mr. Lorry finally must tell Stryver,
"you know, there really is so much, too much of you!"  Angered by Mr. Lorry's suggestion
that Lucie would reject his proposal, Stryver turns
and

"burst
out of the Bank, causing such a concussion of air on his passage through, that to stand
up against it bowing behind the two counters, required the utmost remaining strength of
the two ancient
clerks.

Further in the
narrative, in Chapter 21 of Book the Second, Dickens writes that Mr.
Stryver

readability="6">

shouldered his way through the law, like some
engine focing itself through turbid
water...

He marries a florid
widow who has property and three boys.  Towards these "three lumps of bread-and-cheese,"
Mr. Stryver exudes "patronage of the most offensive quality from every
pore."

So, rather than his being large, the
characterization of C. J. Stryver focuses more upon his overbearing nature and
manners.

Can any regulation of speech that is not viewpoint-neutral be legitimate? How does this link to permissibility of campus hate speech regulations?

There are some legal consequences to certain kinds of
speech under various state and federal anti-discrimination laws, and this has passed
muster under the United States Constitution and state constitutions.  Also, some states
now have enhanced sentencing for hate crimes, which means that it is likely some speech
is involved.  I don't know if any of those has been challenged under the First
Amendment.

For the most part, anti-discrimination statutes
do not have criminal consequences and usually involve what is called a "make whole"
remedy, meaning the law is meant to put the victim in the position he or she would have
been in had the unlawful discrimination not happened.  Using the "n" word to a co-worker
would be one example of a violation of such a statute.  Consequences in a case like this
could very well be losing one's job.

Most campus policies
are pretty much in line with anti-discrimination statutes, so are not likely to be
challenged.  Also bear in mind that the First Amendment is meant to stop the government
from repressing speech.  So a private university is not subject to the First Amendment
at all.  Similarly a non-governmental workplace is not subject to the First Amendment,
and a company is perfectly within its rights to tell its employees what they can and
cannot say.

What are Mendel’s laws of inheritance and Mendelian dominance? Define the terms dominant and recessive and explain the two inheritance laws.

Mendel's law of
inheritance describes what happens when the male and female genotypes
combine and form a gamete.  The alleles of a given trait pair up and separate from other
traits.  One allele from each member combine and form a pair.  The phenotype of the
trait is determined by the type of allele combination.

An
allele can either be dominant or recessive.  A dominant
allele will express itself.  A recessive allele will be
suppressed by a dominant allele.

An allelic pair can be
homozygotic or heterozygotic.  A homozygotic allelic pair is made up of either 2
dominant alleles or 2 recessive alleles.  A heterozygotic allelic pair is made up of 1
dominant allele and 1 recessive allele.

For example,
suppose F represents a given trait.  Each gamate provides a genotype of trait F. 
Capital letters stand for dominant alleles and lower case letters stand for recessive
alleles.  Therefore, according to Mendel's law of inheritance, the possible
genotype combinations for this trait are:

FF - both
dominant, trait is expressed

Ff - one dominant, one
recessive, trait is expressed

fF - one dominant, one
recessive, trait is expressed

ff - both recessive, trait is
suppressed

According to this pattern, a dominant trait will
be expressed 3 times as often as a recessive trait.  The combination of genotypes is
random.

I have attached a link to a website on
Mendelian Genetics.