1: optimistic
2: confident
The answer is option 4: <u>He believed in the absolute power of kings.</u>
The England King James I (who ruled from 1603 to1625) clashed with the Parliament's ideas several times for his persistent belief in the absolute power of kings, justified for their divine right, which enabled him to rule over all their subjects without interference from anyone. Instead, the Parliament believed that the King must not rule alone, doing all that he pleased.
They both had very different views on how royal finances had to be handled as well as foreign affairs, for example, the Parliament members held that tax collection was an issue that had to be approved by them in order to improve the crown's finances, which had been seriously weakened by the long war with Spain (1585-1604), as for James I, he wanted to collect the taxes on his own, whose purpose wasn't only to improve the government but also to over-spend on his luxury way of living.
In the case,Texas v.Johnson,the texas court tried and convicted Mr.Johnson for violating the statute that prohibited the desecration of venerated objects e.g the American flag that could arouse anger in other individuals.Johnson appealed with the argument that the actions were a "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment.
Texas laws punishes actions such as flag burning that might arouse anger in other but it this case the outrage alone couldnot justify for supressing Johnson's freedom of speech.In this perspective,the Texas law discriminated upon view point in that though it punishes such actions,it still specifically exempt prosecution of actions with similar defination such as burning or burying of worn-out flag.
Therefore, flag burning in Texas v.Johnson constituted a symbolic speech and is protected by the Firts Amendment.
<span>received a share of the profits because then have part in it to</span>
<span>Hi,
In 1976, Argentina was ruled by a military junta that did which of the following?
-led a "dirty war" against political opponents </span>
