<span>The correct answers are: 1)D The statement refers to a situation in which the rights of other people are interfered by the guilty party, who cannot plead innocence through the right of "freedom of speech", as it is relatively "inferior"or of no importance considering the transgression of others' rights.
It is not an example of absolute, natural rights nor of civil rights (although it is about freedom of speech, which is a civil right), since its focus is about the peculiar situation, regarding relative rights.
2)B Civil liberties are a protective form of freedoms, or "liberties" which cannot be touched by the government, without due process.
3)B The Constitution initially didn't have a bill of rights and this became a controversial issue, focusing on the necessity to limit the governement's power.</span>
B is the correct answer....
<span>The military was not strong enough to protect Europe.
The Vikings were a formidable force, and the English (in the example given) were not organized or managed well enough to withstand such invasions. An English scholar, Alcuin, who became a key figure in Charlemagne's court, even went so far as to say that the Vikings were a manifestation of God's wrath against the immorality of the European people.
</span>
He wanted to be more forgiving. His VP gave the south much more harsh treatment. Look into Lincoln’s 10% plan compared to his VP’s plan. That is how you’ll be able to differentiate between how he wanted to treat them and how they ended up getting treatedz
