Answer: Magna Carta is one of the foundations of democracy.
Explanation:
The Magna Carta, in free vocabulary, was a document that brought equal justice to all. According to this document, things in medieval England changed so that everyone was equal before the law. The Magna Carta also implied the fact that in the future, even the king himself could not bear the consequences if he broke the law. The Magna Carta, as such, contains elements of democracy and the rule of law.
Direct election of U.S. senators is your answer!
The French Revolution was a major event in the history of Western societies, and had a profound effect on the world today. Beginning in 1789, the revolution saw the French people overthrow their absolute monarchy and bring about a republic that was based on the principles of equality, liberty and fraternity. The revolution unfolded as a series of major events beginning when Louis XVI called the Estates-General in May of 1789. However, the Estates-General failed due to divisions between the representatives of the estates and poor decision-making of the king.
Once the Estates-General had failed, the representatives of the third estate and their newly created National Assembly moved to the nearby tennis court in order to carry out their own discussions. The representatives of the third estate were angered with the inaction of the Estates-General and upset with their position in French society. They resented the estates system and the absolute monarchy of Louis XVI. It was in the tennis court that on the 20th of June 1789 the third estate established the National Assembly, the new revolutionary government, and pledged "not to separate, and to reassemble wherever circumstances require, until the constitution of the kingdom is established."
The Tennis Court Oath was significant because it showed the growing unrest against Louis XVI and laid the foundation for later events, including: the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the storming of the Bastille.
Answer:
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that the Constitution of the United States was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and therefore the rights and privileges it confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.[2][3] The decision was made in the case of Dred Scott, an enslaved black man whose owners had taken him from Missouri, which was a slave-holding state, into the Missouri Territory, most of which had been designated "free" territory by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. When his owners later brought him back to Missouri, Scott sued in court for his freedom, claiming that because he had been taken into "free" U.S. territory, he had automatically been freed, and was legally no longer a slave. Scott sued first in Missouri state court, which ruled that he was still a slave under its law. He then sued in U.S. federal court, which ruled against him by deciding that it had to apply Missouri law to the case. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court
A high inflation rate is most difficult for people of a low socio-economic standing. The reason for this is the fact that people which a low socio-economic standing have the lowest income and for that reason, the amount of money which they're receiving gets lowered through inflation.
