Is it the conflict within or conflict between characters that makes Shakespeare's play King Henry V so compelling?

Henry V takes place against the backdrop of The Hundred Years' War, which, as the name suggests, was a long, drawn-out conflict—a particularly brutal one at that—between England and France. The wider conflict in turn generates a number of conflicts in miniature between characters and also internal conflict within King Henry himself. All the various conflicts in Henry V are therefore in some way interrelated. The most compelling of these are arguably those that reveal the myriad complexities of Henry's character, complexities that make him such a fascinating individual.
Much like Hamlet, King Henry V is torn between two seemingly contradictory roles. On the one hand, he sees himself as an avowedly Christian monarch, one sworn to uphold and defend the teachings of Christ. He is "no tyrant, but a Christian king." At the beginning of the play, he worries about the Christian propriety of his claim to the French crown. Ironically, it is the Archbishop of Canterbury who persuades Henry that he is well within his rights. However, the Archbishop's sly advice has less to do with Christian piety than with a cynical attempt to delay Parliament's appropriation of Church wealth.
Nevertheless, we can see that Henry is suitably conflicted right from the outset. As well as seeing himself as a soldier of Christ, he is also aware that he needs to live up to the role of warrior-king, fearlessly leading his country into battle against the enemy. This is no mere bravado; the expectations of his fellow countrymen and the honor of his throne demand a strong martial posture. Henry does not want to disappoint.
Putting on the mantle of warrior-king is not just for the benefit of England; it allows Henry to deal with an internal conflict that has been raging deep within his soul for some time. If we cast our minds back to Henry IV, Parts 1 & 2, we remember what Henry used to be like before he ascended the throne, when he was "madcap Prince Hal," an upper-class delinquent fond of thievery and hanging out with low-life characters in taverns.
Now he finally appears to be the "sweet hope" that everyone prayed he would be. He has torn asunder "the veil of wildness," overcome the impetuosity of youth, rejected Falstaff's bad influence, and become a man at long last. Yet, Henry is still somewhat insecure, not entirely comfortable in the role of king, and he hates to be reminded of his younger days.
The Dauphin's insolent "gift" of tennis balls does precisely this. Henry's response to French disrespect is swift and decisive. He will wreak revenge upon them but in support of his God-given rights as king. The unfortunate intervention of the French Ambassador has given Henry the opportunity to deal with his various inner conflicts in one fell swoop. Henry's threats to the French show him to be a man, a warrior, and (in his mind, at least) a Christian.
Unfortunately, resolution is merely temporary. Henry struggles to achieve any lasting sense of resolution to his various conflicts, try as he might. In his role as both Christian and king he veers wildly from one part of his identity to another, often without rhyme or reason. He promises that French prisoners will be fairly treated but has no compunction about having a number of them summarily slaughtered at the Battle of Agincourt. He has his former friend Bardolph hanged for looting a church. It is highly significant that Bardolph used to hang around with Henry during his misspent youth. The summary justice meted out to the "madcap" Hal's former drinking companion is again a way of Henry dealing with inner conflict. As a king, he will tolerate no indiscipline among his men; as a Christian, he is grossly offended by the act of stealing from churches; as a man, he no longer wishes to be reminded of his previous immaturity.
Perhaps it is just as well that Henry never truly achieves resolution. For it is precisely those raging inner conflicts that generate so much of the play's action. Inner conflict combines with outer to provide immense dramatic tension that partakes of both but ultimately transcends them. This is the greatest achievement of Shakespeare in Henry V.

What is the setting like throughout the novel?

I would say that this novel has two main and very distinct setting locations. The story begins in Pondicherry, India during the 1960's and moves into the 1970's as Pi Patel grows up. The India setting is a mixed bag of experiences for Pi. In general, he has a great time there because of his involvement with the zoo. His family loves him, he is supported and well taken care of, and he has a wide variety of religious experiences that help make Pi an incredibly diverse and round character. The downside to Pondicherry is that India's government is a mess. It's a political war zone because of Indira Gandhi's rule, and Pi's family decides to leave India for a safer Canada. Unfortunately, the ship doesn't make it, and the rest of the story's setting is almost completely confined to a 26 foot long life boat that holds Pi and a tiger named Richard Parker. That is a very contained setting, and readers come to intimately know about the solar stills, the benches, the tarps, the anchor, etc. This is the setting that most people remember about the book, and they often fail to remember that Pi's time in Pondicherry is integral to his survival on the lifeboat. Without his zoo knowledge and spiritual strength that he gained in Pondicherry, it isn't likely that Pi would have survived the lifeboat. The book's final setting is very minimal. Pi reaches land in Mexico and is treated at a hospital.

How do the foils to the character of Hamlet help in the development of plot and theme in the play?

Laertes and Fortinbras both serve as foils to Hamlet. When Laertes's father dies under suspicious circumstances, Laertes comes rushing back to Denmark to learn the truth and to avenge Polonius's death. When Fortinbras's father dies in battle with the old king, Hamlet, he likewise wastes no time in seeking to avenge his father's death and reclaiming the lands that Norway lost in the war with Denmark.
These two sons's swift actions draw attention to how slowly Hamlet himself moves, even though he knows his father was murdered and that it was certainly unlawful. Learning of these other men's responses to their fathers's deaths seems to compel Hamlet to question himself and his own character, allowing even more tragic deaths to occur before he actually makes up his mind to do something to avenge his father.

An obvious foil for Hamlet would be Fortinbras. Like Hamlet, Fortinbras is a young prince whose father met his end through a violent death. Unlike Hamlet, he shows a great sense of purpose and resolve in taking revenge. Old Fortinbras was killed over a land dispute by Hamlet's father, and ever since, the young Norwegian whipper-snapper has been itching to avenge his death.
It is his determination to have his revenge that keeps the kingdom of Denmark in a state of tension and uncertainty. It also serves to highlight Hamlet's chronic indecision in terms of avenging his own father's death. Fortinbras puts Hamlet to shame with his penchant for action. Observe how the young Norwegian prince puts together an invasion force to grab a worthless plot of land in Poland while Hamlet is still brooding over the best course of action to take. Again, it is Fortinbras who drives the plot, as Hamlet, ashamed of his chronic inertia, resolves to settle accounts with Claudius once and for all.

A foil or a foil character differs from one character (in this case, Hamlet) and those differences highlight Hamlet's traits. So, we don't have to look far until we come to Claudius who serves as a foil to Hamlet. Claudius's crime highlights (and causes) Hamlet's need for vengeance. Claudius is the main villain/antagonist in this play and this contrasts with Hamlet's role as the main protagonist. Claudius continues to try to hide his crime, while suppressing Hamlet's role and importance (by sending him away). This is contrasted by Hamlet's desire to expose Claudius for the criminal that he is. These characters are actively working against one another, but they do not communicate this to each other until the very end. This unspoken but active duel fuels the plot and contributes to many themes of the play: murder, secrecy, revenge, madness, and justice. 
An interesting side note to this "duel" is that both Claudius and Hamlet are similar in that they both conspire and plot in secret. Each man has an agenda and the best way to achieve his goal is to keep the agenda hidden from others. Hamlet and Claudius do not trust one another, but they hide this suspicion from one another. It is like a chess game. Little by little, Claudius grows more suspicious of Hamlet. Even Polonius shows some suspicion and proclaims it in the famous line, "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't." (II.ii.216) Hamlet tries to hide his plot for revenge under a guise of madness. 

Cite specific details that describe society in 2081. Infer how society might treat someone who is not average.

In this classic science fiction story, Vonnegut tells us some things directly about the society of 2081 and leaves the reader to infer others. The first detail given is about the equality. "THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way."
The second detail we see is that this society engages in continual monitoring to ensure people are equal. That's where the "unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General" comes in.
The third detail is that this is still technically the United States, and that rule of law still exists. This is indicated in the line "All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution."  This is an example of Vonnegut implying more than he says. If there are that many amendments to the Constitution, it is unlikely the country is still the same.
As for how society treats someone who is not average, we don't have to infer that as the story tells us directly. If you are above average in any way, the handicappers adjust your abilities. For example, they disguise the beautiful and disrupt the thinking of the intelligent.
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

In "The Fall of the House of Usher," how is Roderick’s condition analogous to the state of his home? Why does the house crumble at the end of the story?

At the beginning of the short story, the narrator describes the House of Usher as a gloomy, eerie, decrepit home which permeates the surrounding atmosphere with terror and despair. The narrator refers to the home as the "mansion of gloom" and comments on its antique features. He mentions that the house is dilapidated, yet still standing despite the numerous exterior stones which are crumbling. The House of Usher looks neglected, and the narrator notices a large fissure extending from the roof to the front of the building. There is a Gothic archway which leads to several long, dark passages throughout the house. The rooms inside the mansion are vast and lofty with narrow windows. The narrator describes the inside of the house as having an "atmosphere of sorrow."
Roderick, its owner, seems to be the physical manifestation of the house. Roderick suffers from a mental illness and is extremely depressed throughout the story. His loss of sanity coincides with how the exterior of the home is gradually decaying. Similar to the dark, gloomy atmosphere inside the home, Roderick is also a melancholy person full of despair and anguish. At the end of the story, Madeline escapes from her tomb and breaks into the room where the narrator is reading to Roderick. Her appearance terrifies Roderick who dies of shock. As the narrator flees the home, a lightning bolt strikes the fissure of the house, and it crumbles to the ground. It is important to remember that the House of Usher is both the title of the home as well as the name of the family's lineage. The reason the house crumbles at the end of the story dramatically represents Roderick's death and end of his family's bloodline. Roderick, his home, and his family's bloodline have collapsed and cease to exist by the end of the story. 

In what ways did England, Germany, and Russia play roles in pulling the United States into World War I?

The manners in which the English and Germans could be considered to have pulled the United States into World War I were closely intertwined. The relationship between Great Britain and the United States was, of course, borne of bloody confrontations, first the American Revolutionary War and then the War of 1812. In the century between then and the onset of the Great War, the relationship between the two countries was one of constant mutual antipathy, as the growth of the United States increasingly encroached on British territory in North America. As tensions between the North and South increased, all three parties (the Union, the Confederacy, and Great Britain) engaged in complicated diplomatic maneuvering.
Enduring and bitter differences between the United States and Great Britain notwithstanding, the two countries gradually grew closer due to their shared heritage and language. Trade relations were strong, and the U.S. and British Governments recognized confluences of interest in commerce and in international relations. It was Germany, however, that forced the two into an alliance that would grow immeasurably during the Second World War.
Specific to World War I, it was Germany's policy of what was known as "unrestricted submarine warfare" against commercial and cargo shipping, as well as against military shipping, in the Atlantic Ocean that forced U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's hand and propelled the country into the war. President Wilson had advocated a policy of neutrality with respect to the war in Europe. The problem of German submarines, however, most prominently the sinking of the British ship Lusitania and the consequent deaths of 1,200 civilians, among them 128 Americans, moved popular opinion towards increased sympathy towards the British and French and against the Germans.
The other event that forced Wilson's hand was known as "the Zimmerman Telegram." A secret German diplomatic message from Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmerman to that country's ambassador to Mexico, Heinrich von Eckhardt, included a promise to the Mexican Government that, in exchange for pledging its support for Germany, Mexico would receive former Mexican territories that were now part of the United States. The two developments--German submarine warfare and its diplomatic machinations with respect to the United States--were instrumental in pushing the United States into the war on the side of Britain and France.
The situation involving Russia is considerably more complicated and distant than that involving Britain and Germany. American-Russian relations were hardly the highest priority for Washington, D.C. The period leading up to and during World War I was one of tremendous instability in Russia. The Romanov Dynasty under Czar Nicholas II was in its final hours, revolutionary fervor having swept that nation. The czar's support for Russia's participation in the war was one of the most important issues leading to his eventual abdication and his replacement by, first, the Provisional Government and, after the November 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, the communists led by Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and others. The czar's fall from power was immediately followed by Russia's withdrawal from the war under terms with Germany that were distinctly disadvantageous for the newly emerging Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Russia's withdrawal from the war hardly presaged an era of peace for the Russian people. On the contrary, the years that followed were unrelentingly violent as civil war broke out and the rise of Joseph Stalin resulted in the deaths of millions. Additionally, the United States and Britain conspired, half-heartedly, against the Bolsheviks, including sending troops to Russia's Arctic and Far East regions. All of this, however, is beside the point. If the question is "how did Russia contribute to America's entrance into World War I," the answer is minimally if at all. U.S. involvement in the war was directly related to this country's relationships with Britain, France and Germany. 
https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann

Explain the concept of judicial review. How did the Supreme Court get the power of judicial review? Did the US Constitution specifically designate the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court? How can one request the Supreme Court accept and review a legal case? How does the Supreme Court decide which cases to accept for review? What does it mean to "have standing" in a legal case? What happens if the Supreme Court’s decision results in a tie? Which national issue/debate do you think the US Supreme Court needs to review in the near future?

Judicial review is one of the most important powers wielded by the Supreme Court of the United States. The power of judicial review was not in the Constitution. Also, it was not formulated until the third president, Thomas Jefferson, was in office. Americans often like to think of the Founding Fathers, the creators of the Constitution, as a group of infallible and omniscient men. But they were mere mortals who could not envisage every contingency. Many governmental precepts developed over time, and judicial review is one of them.
Judicial review means the Supreme Court can declare any law unconstitutional. Its use solidifies the judiciary's role as an equal branch of the government—along with the legislative and executive branches. It was established by the Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court case of 1803.
The examples set by outstanding men helped shape the national government. The presidency was molded by George Washington; the Supreme Court was shaped by John Marshall—the fourth Chief Justice. Marshall, known as the Great Chief Justice, was an extraordinary figure. He was Chief Justice from 1801 to 1835. Without Marshall, judicial review probably would not have developed.
Judicial review has been decisive in determining some historic and momentous cases. For example, Roe v. Wade overturned state laws that outlawed abortion. And Citizens United nullified laws that limited spending by corporations on elections.

How did the Supreme Court get the power of judicial review?
The Supreme Court received this power after the famous Marbury vs. Madison case in 1803. Accordingly, James Madison (Thomas Jefferson's Secretary of State) refused to seat William Marbury as a District of Columbia justice of the peace. The Supreme Court ruled that it was wrong of Jefferson to use his executive authority to prevent the seating of a judge. Marbury had actually been appointed by John Adams, the previous president. His nomination was approved by the senate during Adam's tenure as president. However, James Madison, the new secretary of state, refused to deliver Marbury's commission. Without the commission, Marbury could not be seated.
Unfortunately, although the court ruled that it was wrong not to seat Marbury, it also ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the executive office of president and could not force Jefferson to seat Marbury.
Does the US Constitution specifically designate the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court?
No, it does not.
How can one request the Supreme Court accept and review a legal case?
Anyone who is unsatisfied with the decisions of a lower court may petition the Supreme Court for a review. To request a review, petitioners must ask the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari. Once this is done, the Supreme Court can decide whether it will order a lower court to send up a record of the court case. Note that the Supreme Court is under no obligation to review legal cases that have already been tried in appellate courts.
To accept a case, 4 of the 9 justices must vote to hear the case. However, when a request for a stay of execution is made, 5 of the 9 justices must vote to grant a stay. In special circumstances, one Supreme Court justice may grant a stay, but the decision will subsequently be reviewed by the entire court.
How does the Supreme Court decide which cases to accept for review?
The Supreme Court can accept or reject any case. However, it is more inclined to hear cases that have a national impact or that could set an important precedent. An example would be Obergefell vs. Hodges, when the Supreme Court voted to reverse the Sixth Circuit's decision. The 5-4 Supreme Court decision made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.
What does it mean to "have standing" in a legal case?
Legal standing or locus standi means that the petitioner has the right to bring his/her suit to court. The petitioner has to show that he/she has sustained harm/injury or may sustain future harm from the defendant's actions.
What happens if the Supreme Court’s decision results in a tie?
In the case of a tie, the decision of a lower court is upheld.
Which national issue/debate do you think the US Supreme Court needs to review in the near future?
This will depend upon events of import to our country. Below, I provide two links that list granted Supreme Court cases for the 2018-2019 term.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/18grantednotedlist.pdf

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

The concept of judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to declare a law passed by the executive or legislative branches unconstitutional. This power comes from the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803) and does not come from the Constitution. 
Most of the cases the Supreme Court hears are appeals, meaning the cases have been tried by a lower court. If you want the Supreme Court to hear a case, you must first ask the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari, meaning a request for a lower court to send its records to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is asked to hear about 7,000 cases each year and only accepts about 100–150 of these cases. The court generally hears cases that affect the entire country, that set an important legal precedent, and that have been tried by the US Court of Appeals or the highest court in a particular state. 
"Having standing" means having the ability to bring a case to court, usually because the plaintiff has suffered or will suffer redressable harm. As there are usually nine justices on the court, a tie is rare; however, occasionally, a justice will be missing or recuse him or herself from a case. In the case of a 4–4 tie, the decision of the lower court, usually a state supreme court, stands. In 2017, the court will soon hear a case about the rights of transgender people.
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1