1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
11Alexandr11 [23.1K]
3 years ago
14

Contrast the Massachusetts Body of Liberties to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut.

History
1 answer:
Tanzania [10]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

Massachusetts Body of Liberties included a set of Liberties that every citizen could enjoy under the General Court.

Fundamental Orders of Connecticut included 11 orders or laws and a preamble that rendered the General Court as supreme.

Explanation:

The Massachusetts Body of Liberties and the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut were both legal frameworks established by the citizens of colonies for administrative purposes. The major difference between the two frameworks is that the Massachusetts Body of Liberties included a set of Liberties that every citizen could enjoy under the General Court. In other words, it included liberties and rights of the people as citizens of the colony.

On the other hand, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut included 11 specific orders or laws and a preamble which provided the General Court with executive, judicial and legislative authority. It made the General Court the most supreme authority of the colony.

You might be interested in
How did Washington gain control of Boston?
masha68 [24]
What is the answer because I have the same question
3 0
3 years ago
Which of these is a modern day result of the Spanish colonization of the
Greeley [361]

Answer:

B. Most people south of the United States still speak Spanish, or a language that is influenced by the Spanish language.

Explanation:

It is not A, because Spain was a Catholic country, thereby, when creating colonies and dealing with the natives of Central and South America, they converted the natives to Catholicism, not Protestants.

It is not C, because Spain did not technically settle much of the United States, only reaching towards the south of the US (around present-day Texas), and temporarily in the Louisiana Purchase after it acquired the territory from France (only to give it back). Most Spanish speaking regions are found simply in the south, or from further immigrations later on in history.

It is not D, for again, the Spanish did not extensively settle what is now known as the United States. The United States draws most of it's language and culture from Great Britain, therefore having the United Kingdom as the ancestery of choice (during that time and age).

5 0
2 years ago
Al: Identify the edible part in<br> each of these pear coriander
Mars2501 [29]

Answer:

Pear : Skin , Flesh

Coriander : Leaves , Stem

Ginger : Leaves , Shoots

Potato : Tubers ( Tubers are little stems )

Cumin : Seeds

Beetroot : Some people discard the leaves of beetroot so Leaves is the answer

Sugarcane : Inner Stem

Papaya : Flesh , Seeds

Papaya seeds have a spicy taste to it but some of people discard it .

Spinach : Leaves , Stem

Rice : Endosperm which we eat . it is rice .

Banana : Fruit , Flower and Stem

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
What is the purpose of the document of undelivered speech​
steposvetlana [31]

Answer: am not sure this is the answer but try it

Explanation:I seek no confrontation. I only pray and will strive for a genuine national reconciliation founded on justice.

I am prepared for the worst, and have decided against the advice of my mother, my spiritual adviser, many of my tested friends and a few of my most valued political mentors.

A death sentence awaits me. Two more subversion charges, both calling for death penalties, have been filed since I left three years ago and are now pending with the courts.

I could have opted to seek political asylum in America, but I feel it is my duty, as it is the duty of every Filipino, to suffer with his people especially in time of crisis.

I never sought nor have I been given assurances or promise of leniency by the regime. I return voluntarily armed only with a clear conscience and fortified in the faith that in the end justice will emerge triumphant.

According to Gandhi, the willing sacrifice of the innocent is the most powerful answer to insolent tyranny that has yet been conceived by God and man.

Three years ago when I left for an emergency heart bypass operation, I hoped and prayed that the rights and freedoms of our people would soon be restored, that living conditions would improve and that blood-letting would stop.

Rather than move forward, we have moved backward. The killings have increased, the economy has taken a turn for the worse and the human rights situation has deteriorated.

During the martial law period, the Supreme Court heard petitions for Habeas Corpus. It is most ironic, after martial law has allegedly been lifted, that the Supreme Court last April ruled it can no longer entertain petitions for Habeas Corpus for persons detained under a Presidential Commitment Order, which covers all so-called national security cases and which under present circumstances can cover almost anything.

The country is far advanced in her times of trouble. Economic, social and political problems bedevil the Filipino. These problems may be surmounted if we are united. But we can be united only if all the rights and freedoms enjoyed before September 21, 1972 are fully restored.

The Filipino asks for nothing more, but will surely accept nothing less, than all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the 1935 Constitution—the most sacred legacies from the Founding Fathers.

Yes, the Filipino is patient, but there is a limit to his patience. Must we wait until that patience snaps?

The nation-wide rebellion is escalating and threatens to explode into a bloody revolution. There is a growing cadre of young Filipinos who have finally come to realize that freedom is never granted, it is taken. Must we relive the agonies and the blood-letting of the past that brought forth our Republic or can we sit down as brothers and sisters and discuss our differences with reason and goodwill?

I have often wondered how many disputes could have been settled easily had the disputants only dared to define their terms.

So as to leave no room for misunderstanding, I shall define my terms:

1. Six years ago, I was sentenced to die before a firing squad by a Military Tribunal whose jurisdiction I steadfastly refused to recognize. It is now time for the regime to decide. Order my IMMEDIATE EXECUTION OR SET ME FREE.

I was sentenced to die for allegedly being the leading communist leader. I am not a communist, never was and never will be.

2. National reconciliation and unity can be achieved but only with justice, including justice for our Muslim and Ifugao brothers. There can be no deal with a Dictator. No compromise with Dictatorship.

3. In a revolution there can really be no victors, only victims. We do not have to destroy in order to build.

4. Subversion stems from economic, social and political causes and will not be solved by purely military solutions; it can be curbed not with ever increasing repression but with a more equitable distribution of wealth, more democracy and more freedom, and

5. For the economy to get going once again, the workingman must be given his just and rightful share of his labor, and to the owners and managers must be restored the hope where there is so much uncertainty if not despair.

On one of the long corridors of Harvard University are carved in granite the words of Archibald Macleish:

“How shall freedom be defended? By arms when it is attacked by arms; by truth when it is attacked by lies; by democratic faith when it is attacked by authoritarian dogma. Always, and in the final act, by determination and faith.”

I return from exile and to an uncertain future with only determination and faith to offer—faith in our people and faith in God.

Basahin sa Filipino

4 0
3 years ago
Why did the British win the battle to the French
victus00 [196]

Answer: Strong leadership within the military, the size of the French army, and the number of Indians who allied themselves to the French made it difficult for the British. In 1757, a new English prime minister, William Pitt, vowed to win the war against the French.

Explanation:

Hope this helped!

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Define labor union ​
    9·2 answers
  • Why were Joseph and Mary traveling to Bethlehem?
    14·1 answer
  • For what religious, political, and commercial reasons was portugal interested in africa?
    7·2 answers
  • How did government actions reflect conservative business interests in this period?
    12·1 answer
  • Why would President Ford get rid Executive Order 9066 in 1976?
    7·2 answers
  • How is the Electoral College a form of representative democracy? A) Although the people do not chose the electors, it is still a
    5·1 answer
  • Which Confucian idea was present in Shotoku’s government and society?
    13·1 answer
  • What positive impact did Elijah McCoy have on the US
    6·2 answers
  • Interested in society as a whole, believed sociologist should go beyond
    6·1 answer
  • How tall are you guys
    9·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!