Answer:
Jackson's election was significant because of his posture as "the common man's" candidate. Jackson was one of the first Presidents elected who did not have the Federalist pedigree of prior candidates. At the same time, he did not possess the "insider" status of his opponent, John Quincy Adams.
In 1215, a band of rebellious medieval barons forced King John of England to agree to a laundry list of concessions later called the Great Charter, or in Latin, Magna Carta. Centuries later, America’s Founding Fathers took great inspiration from this medieval pact as they forged the nation’s founding documents—including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
For 18th-century political thinkers like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, Magna Carta was a potent symbol of liberty and the natural rights of man against an oppressive or unjust government. The Founding Fathers’ reverence for Magna Carta had less to do with the actual text of the document, which is mired in medieval law and outdated customs, than what it represented—an ancient pact safeguarding individual liberty.
“For early Americans, Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence were verbal representations of what liberty was and what government should be—protecting people rather than oppressing them,” says John Kaminski, director of the Center for the Study of the American Constitution at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Much in the same way that for the past 100 years the Statue of Liberty has been a visual representation of freedom, liberty, prosperity and welcoming.”
When the First Continental Congress met in 1774 to draft a Declaration of Rights and Grievances against King George III, they asserted that the rights of the English colonists to life, liberty and property were guaranteed by “the principles of the English constitution,” a.k.a. Magna Carta. On the title page of the 1774 Journal of The Proceedings of The Continental Congress is an image of 12 arms grasping a column on whose base is written “Magna Carta.
Answer:
A. If a candidate ran against Senator Smith, many people would vote for that candidate.
Explanation:
According to a different source, the rest of the question states:
<em>Which prediction can most likely be made based on this scenario?</em>
<em>A. If a candidate ran against Senator Smith, many people would vote for that candidate.</em>
<em>B. Even if a candidate ran against Senator Smith, people would not vote for either person.</em>
<em>C. If a candidate ran against Senator Smith, most people would continue to vote for Smith.</em>
<em>D. Even if Senator Smith decided not to run for office again, many people would vote for him as a write-in candidate.</em>
The prediction that is most likely to happen is that, if a candidate ran against Senator Smith, most people would vote for him. We know, based on the passage, that Senator Smith is not well-liked among voters, as he is not considered to be responsive to the needs of voters. Therefore, it is very possible that Senator Smith would find it difficult to compete with another candidate.
The one child policy, was an official program initiated in the late 1970s and early '80s by the central government of China, the purpose of it being to limit the great majority of family units in the country to one child each. The rationale for implementing the policy was to reduce the growth rate of China's enormous population.
