They were expected to focus only on their homes and families.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
The issues in France in the 1780s that would have been addressed if the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen were enforced would have been the following. First of all, the poverty of the French people who were living in harsh economic conditions. Then, the oppression exerted by the King of France, followed by the injustices suffered by many French who had no rights and voice to express their opinions. If they opposed the King, they were sent to prison with no trail.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was issued on August 26, 1789, by the French National Constituent Assembly, manifesting that all men had natural and universal rights.
Answer:
Even though each style of art is unique, these movements collectively contain a break with tradition and a engrossment with anxiety and other emotional states.
Explanation:
The universal themes are conveyed in the art of the Cubists, Dadaists and Surrealists is the movements which collectively contain a break with tradition and a engrossment with anxiety and other emotional states.
Cubism is an art movement in the early 20th century which was initiated by Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso.
Dadaism is an European art which also commenced in the early 20th century is a movement which occur out of negative responses to world war 1.
Surrealists commenced in the early 1920 as a cultural movement with the aim to emphasize on the disagreement between dreams and reality.
A) using an earlier case as a guide.
Answer:
b. John C. Calhoun.
Explanation:
The South Carolina Exposition and Protest, known as Calhoun's Exposition, was written in December 1828 by John C. Calhoun,
Calhoun was Vice President of the United States at the time when John Quincy Adams and Jackson were in turn .
This document, also known as Calhoun Exposition,
exposes Calhoun's doctrine of nullification and sets out the idea that a state has the right to reject federal law. It exposes the reasons for doing that and under which conditions.
Thus, any state has a legitimate right to set aside or strike down any federal law that that state has found to regard as unconstitutional with respect to the Constitution of the United States.
