Eastern Europe I think.... not 100% sure
The Stamp Act of 1765 was levied mainly at the American Colonists in order for the British to make money off of them. The colonists did not want the stamp act, and stated that it was unconstitutionanal, and became extremely violent. Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, but passed another one in a different name that includes what the Stamp Act had in it.
hope this helps
The colonists became extremely violent* is key
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
Answer:
Obergefell v. Hodges
Loving v. Virginia
Roe v. Wade
Explanation:
Obergefell v. Hodges & Loving v. Virginia were Supreme Court cases that had to do with marriage. <u><em>Obergefell v. Hodges</em></u> was the most recent case in 2015, ruling that same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marry. <u><em>Loving v. Virginia</em></u> (1967) was a case that outlawed the segregation-era ban on interracial marriage. Both cases ruled that the protections were guaranteed under the Equal Protection & Due Process Clauses in the 14th Amendment.
Roe v. Wade (1973) is a more disputed case, but the original ruling guaranteed a woman's right to abort her baby. The Due Process Clause regarding privacy was again argued here.
Answer:
Patrick Henry
Explanation:
Patrick Henry served as Virginia's first governor (1776-1779) and sixth governor (1784-1786). In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, Henry became an outspoken Anti-Federalist. Henry and other Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 United States Constitution, which created a strong federal government.
