We are currently in an era in which social equity is increasingly distant, there are people who have had money generation after generation thanks to their surnames or companies founded many years ago, on the contrary, there are people to whom poverty and misfortune pursues them. Taking as an example the hunger suffered by many people around the world and its equivalent with the waste of food that is generated every day; food companies and supermarkets generate a lot of money for their work, so part their work could focus on reducing the waste of food to provide it to people in need.
If we talk about people with money and power as politicians are, the best way they can contribute is by exercising their positions with honesty, without stealing money or seeking to profit excessively. In every country in the world there are cases of corruption that leave millions in losses that could be used for the good of society.
Another possible solution that wealthy people can provide in this time of social unrest is the monetary support to certain campaigns and institutions that are currently a social problem, such as education, health and housing. People with a lot of money have great houses or even several properties that although its main purpose is to profit and have more and more money, they could be used for society.
If all the people around the world work together to create small positive changes there would not be so much social inequality. It is not that people with money and power should give everything to alleviate social unrest, it is about contributing to this change little by little. However, people who do not have money can also contribute to the change and improvement of society through tolerance, respect, honesty and hard work.
Spain's main goal was to take them over because A) they wanted it for themselves and B) they didn't want England to have it. Spain and England were not on good terms at the time. (I think.) There was a marriage gone wrong, depending on the time period we are talking about, and it left them on bad terms. Spain and England wanted to be more powerful than the other, as all countries do. At this time, you were either the conqueror or the conquered.
France's main goal was probably the same. They earned their trust and America as an ally. They decided to help the Americans during the Revolutionary War. I believe they did this so they could get a part of the great resources America had.
England believed America was theirs in the first place. They sent Columbus, even though he was Spanish, on the expedition to where he found America. Even though he was supposed to be going to India, he still found America. England sent the pilgrims and England also colonized America. Therefore, they felt they had the right for everything in the Americas.
I may be wrong, but that's the best I can do with my knowledge.
The answer to your question is A.
The 14th Amendment provides that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdictionthereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside
Court orders in which a judge requires authorities to prove that a prisoner is being held lawfully and that allows the prisoner to be freed if the judge is not persuaded by the governments case. Habeas corpus rights imply that prisoners have a right to know what charges are being made against them.
I am going to say that it is citizens cannot be punished without a trial.
