Because the Britain’s has just taxed tea now America as a new nation became hypocritical and taxed whiskey
Both the American Revolution and French Revolution were the products of Enlightenment ideals that emphasized the idea of natural rights and equality. With such an ideological basis, it becomes clear when one sets out to compare the French Revolution and American Revolution that people felt the need to be free from oppressive or tyrannical rule of absolute monarchs and have the ability to live independent from such forces. The leadership in both countries at the time of their revolutions was certainly repressive, especially in terms of taxation. Both areas suffered social and economic hardships that led to the realization that something must be done to topple the hierarchy and put power back into the hands of the people.
While there are several similarities in these revolutions, there are also a few key differences. This comparison essay on the French and American Revolutions seeks to explore the parallels as well as the divisions that are present in both the American Revolution and the French Revolution. The political climate in France during its revolution was quite different than that in America simply because there was not a large war that had just ended in America (while in France the Seven Years War had nearly devastated the French monarchy’s coffers). Furthermore, although the lower and middle classes were generally the majority of the rebelling populace, there was far more upper class support for the revolution in France versus the participation of loyalists in America.
Answer:
What does the fifth amendment protect?
The Fifth Amendment protects the right to avoid incriminating yourself. A defendant can plead the Fifth Amendment if a lawyer asks a question that the defendant would incriminate himself or herself by answering truthfully.
Explanation:
Constitutional Issue ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that “no person . . . shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . . .” This right was made
part of the Bill of Rights to prevent a tyrannical government from forcing accused persons
to confess to crimes they may or may not have committed. Miranda’s case before the
Supreme Court was based on this Fifth Amendment protection. The Court accepted the
case in order to explore and clarify certain problems arising from earlier decisions related
to the rights of individuals taken into police custody. The precise question that the Court
explored was under what circumstances an interrogation may take place so that a confession made during the interrogation would be constitutionally admissible in a court of law.
★★★★★★★
ggghhhhhhhhhhhhhfffddvbnktfvhuyffhhtfhydgjhgfdvb
