James Locke wrote the Second Treatise of Government in 1689 during England's Glorious Revolution. Many people believe that Thomas Jefferson's ideas for the Declaration of Independence came from his knowledge of Locke's work.
Locke wrote that all people are equal and they are born with "unalienable" rights. "Unalienable" means rights that cannot be taken away or denied for any reason.
Locke believed that these rights were fundamental: life, liberty, and property.
Let's discuss his definition of these unalienable rights individually:
Life - This is the most basic right. A person should preserve life and mankind itself. He found it to be a duty and a right. This applied to everyone - except murderers. Since they broke this fundamental right, they forfeited their rights to their own life.
Liberty - Locke believed that people had the right to be free. This meant being able to make your own choices and live your life the way that you wanted to - as long what you are doing is not interfering or infringing on others' rights.
Property - This doesn't just mean land or possessions, like a student might think. Locke also meant this to include the actual person, themselves and their well-being.
Answer:
His march to Dandi was more like a peaceful protest. In his opinion violence was never the answer. Also many fellow Indians followed Gandhi from his "religious retreat" for a distance of almost 240 miles (imagine walking that much, sheesh-). In the end the march resulted with 60,000 people arrested as well as Gandhi himself.
Explanation:
Depending on how early you are speaking of, but generally females were required to stay home and raise their children while males often went to work or war. If war, females usually found jobs as well to support their families whilst their spouse was away.
Answer:
Explanation:
By exercising its power to determine the constitutionality of federal and state government actions, the Supreme Court has developed a large body of judicial decisions, or “precedents,” interpreting the Constitution. How the Court uses precedent to decide controversial issues has prompted debate over whether the Court should follow rules identified in prior decisions or overrule them. The Court’s treatment of precedent implicates longstanding questions about how the Court can maintain stability in the law by adhering to precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis while correcting decisions that rest on faulty reasoning, unworkable standards, abandoned legal doctrines, or outdated factual assumptions.
