<span>.<span>The ban ended iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire and allowed the art of Christian figures to flourish apex</span></span>
Answer:
Letter D. Distrustful
Explanation:
From the second half of the 18th century onwards, after the English victory in the Seven Years' War, the English economy was extremely shaken by the expenses with the war. With that, the eyes of the English Crown turned to its 13 colonies in America. The English Crown aimed at the urgent application of mercantilist legislation in the English colonies.
In addition, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, England needed markets, but because of the relative colonial autonomy (healthy neglect) they always had, the colonies were never consumers of metropolitan production.
Thus, the Crown issued numerous decrees, considerably restricting the relative autonomy of both the northern and southern colonies. It was essential for England to transform its colonies into consumer markets for English production. This situation led the metropolis to close the siege by inspecting the colonies, instituting a series of taxes. How: The Sugar Law, the Stamp Law, the Tea Law, and the Intolerable Laws.
Revolted, the colonists did not accept the impositions adopted by the English Crown. In this climate of dissatisfaction and revolt among the colonists, libertarian ideals influenced by Enlightenment thinkers emerged. Aware of their strength, they refused to pay the fees and turned a blind eye to the taxed products. England was not prepared to negotiate and the clash between the colonists and the metropolis was inevitable. These factors triggered the war of independence for the 13 English colonies.
Answer:
They all follow the same process for voting on amendments
you don't have the answer choices up there
Answer:
The goal of voting is to elect representatives by the voice of the people. However when only two parties are allowed to run, American choices are restricted by limited views and only given two choices. This restriction seems to be effective, but is simple not accomplishing the goal of electing the representatives the people actually want. <u>This argument says that a 2 parties system is bad </u>
Here is another argument
While the constitution does not provide language that explicitly endorses a two party system, a great deal of its laws perpetuate their existence like the electoral college and plurality voting. The electoral college makes it virtually impossible for a third party candidate to win any given office by discouraging votes in individual states amongst other things. Likewise, plurality voting, which guarantees the candidate with the majority of votes wins, generally favors two opposing sides as time goes by. This is only made stronger by the fact that The majority of Americans seem to lean towards the right or left, with a small percentage staying in between. As long as these systems are in place, a two party system will naturally prevail. <u>This argument says that the 2 parties system is good.</u>
Explanation:
It's just how you look at really if you think its bad then your think its bad same goes for the person who says its good. It's just an opinion. But each side will have supporting facts and details.
Answer:
Progressives were interested in establishing a more transparent and accountable government which would work to improve U.S. society. These reformers favored such policies as civil service reform, food safety laws, and increased political rights for women and U.S. workers
