You answer would be A or the first option because if they got the same results then it is most likely that they are both correct
Hope it helped! :-)
See I can't say what it is but I think its A
Answer:
When our leaders threaten journalists, they are threatening the First Amendment, along with our most basic rights. “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press,” said Jefferson, “and that cannot be limited without being lost.
I'll give you some thoughts on the political views of the thinkers named. It's up to you to search for images and write your descriptions.
Aristotle believed there were three valid types of government, depending on the size and scope of what was to be governed or upon local situations. (He studied the constitutions of various governments as part of his work in writing <em />his work, <em>Politics.</em>) As state with a sole ruler ruling rightly is a monarchy. If that form of state is abused, it becomes tyranny. A state with a number of members of the ruling class is an aristocracy -- rule by the excellent ones, noble men suited for governing. If it is corrupted by having a few rule but not of noble character or in a noble way, Aristotle referred to that as an oligarchy (rule by a few). A state in which all worthy men participate in governing Aristotle termed a polity, a constitutional government. He saw it as a corruption, though, to have a full democracy (rule by the people), which would become the sort of thing we call mob rule.
Aquinas picked up thoughts from Aristotle, who had favored a monarchy. Aquinas, writing from a Christian perspective, wrote about the righteous and proper sort of ruler who would serve as God's appointed leader among the people, truly caring for them (not becoming a tyrant).
Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx were partners in establishing communism as a political ideology. Engels and Marx believed that in time, class struggles between overlords and those beneath them would give way to a society in which all ruled and lived and worked collectively.
This is how I would go: (I'm just glossing over it, sorry if you think it lacks detail. :L)
<span>1. California does not deserve a seat in the United Nations. </span>
<span>2. The UN is only for nations; people in California are US citizens; they do not have a culture nor a culture that is exclusive to the rest of the US. In this sense, California is not a nation. (this is the definition of a nation bit.) </span>
<span>3. Federalism, the system where states and national governments share power. California (states in general) does not have the power to enter into treaties with foreign countries, nor regulate commerce with foreign countries. These powers are exclusive to the national government. This would mean that it cannot be given a seat, where these powers would be put into California's hands. I guess states governments would also fit into here somewhere. </span>
