The Federalists felt that this addition wasn't necessary, because they believed that the Constitution as it stood only limited the government not the people.

Explanation:

7 0

3 years ago

Compare and contrast the ways that seventeenth-century

Lina20 [59]

Answer:

<h2>Important differences - Unlike the other two, Charles I was not associated with any political Party, and had not "risen through the ranks" to become Leader. As a King, he achieved his position by heredity, and since no-one can choose their parents, this was used to justify the doctrine of "Divine Right" - God dedcides that a child shall be born into a Royal succession, and it is blasphemy to make any attempt to change this. Similarly, it was therefore the "will of God" that he should be succeeded by one of his children - the eldest son, in the English and Scottish tradition. In England, there was also the unusual situation that, as well as being Head of State, the King was also Head of a particular religious organization - the "Church of England" - which meant that he could not be expected to recognise any other form of Christianity. It was his enforcement of this which aroused resistance by such men as Cromwell, who was against any enofrced religon, and for "liberty of conscience". (This was why Cromwell subsequently also opposed Parliament when it attempted to enforce Presbyterianism,) There is perhaps case for seeing a similarity in Stalin, since "Marxist/Leninist Communism" was in fact a "religion", even though a godless one. There are virtually no comparisons with Hitler.</h2>

3 0

3 years ago

From britain's perspective, were stationing soldiers in the new world permanently and issuing the proclamation of 1763 good colo

irina [24]

The proclamation of 1763 came out of the Treaty of Paris after the Seven Years War, so the British could incorporate lands ceded by the French as a result of their loss. The stationery soldiers were to establish a boundary between the new lands and the lands of the Native American, and to protect the colonizers forms their attacks.

The colonizers were unhappy because they lost the chance to get lands for their own, and because they couldn't commerce freely with the Native. Britain could have left the colonizers to adventure in strange lands and be massacred by the Native Americans, but couldn't afford to lose power over this new lands, over the colonizers and the Native.

6 0

3 years ago