Answer:
Which phrase best represents the U.S. principle of republicanism? The Declaration of Independence refers to King George III as a "tyrant" and "unfit to be the ruler of a free people." What is one way that the U.S. Constitution prevents government leaders from becoming tyrants?
Explanation:
The 1821 constitution expanded voting rights by:
- Including white males who were up to the age of 21 and above and who have lived in the states a minimum of 1 year before the election and paid tax to the government.
- Colored males who have also lived in the state for up to three years and paid tax to the government.
<h3>What voting rights did the 1821 constitution provide?</h3>
The voting rights of 1821 expanded voting rights by giving colored people the opportunity to be at the polls. This is a landmark achievement because prior to this time, colored people were not given voting rights.
However, with the new provisions that this law was providing, colored people who now met the specifications of the law could cast their votes.
This new development is a commendable one because the United States did not previously allow Black people to vote in elections. Now, their male folks could vote if they fulfilled the standards specified for them.
Learn more about the voting rights in New York here:
brainly.com/question/26371221
#SPJ1
The text analysis of the given text is given below:
The credibility of the source is one that seems to be unbiased.
There is a slight bias on the part of the author as he seems to side with the South in keeping slavery with the use of the words, "it did not work out so well for the South..."
<h3>What is a Text Analysis?</h3>
This refers to the careful reading, understanding, and examination of a text to pick out the important points being used by the author,
Hence, we can see that the argument made by the narrator talks about the origin of the US Civil War and he says it was because of the abolition of slavery and the opposition of the South to ending slavery because they benefitted greatly from it.
Read more about text analysis here:
brainly.com/question/24441082
#SPJ1
I would say there’s nothing in the first ten amendments that directly states the government’s ability to have or to not have a curfew, but the 1st amendment would allow the right for someone to peacefully disagree.
The 1st Amendment is your freedom of RAPPS,
so it’s freedom of :
R - religion
A - assembly
P - press
P - petition
S - speech
Generally, city wide curfews such as this are more along the lines of a suggestion or a guideline put in place for safety. If someone decides they want to put their safety at risk, that’s on them. But when you start getting into the other aspects of the 1st amendment (like Petition, Assembly, etc.) you start to get into a place where you might violate other laws.
In other words, it’s likely within the right of those who disagree to express their disagreement, but it’s also within the right of the law enforcement to reprimand them if they directly interfere with the safety of others, like the workers restoring the power, for example.
Like at the end of Scream (1996), they have a city-wide curfew because there’s a killer on the loose. Then all of the teenagers decided to have a curfew party to protest the curfew. If those kids had gotten arrested, it wouldn’t have been directly for having the party (a.k.a. the defiance of the curfew) but they might get arrested for drinking alcohol.
