Answer:
Back in the days, young men were drafted but couldn’t vote. This is why the 26th amendment was ratified
Answer:
<u>B. It set limits on the power of the British monarchy.</u>
Explanation:
The Magna Carta (1215) was a charter of rights written by a group of Barons of England that were tired of King John’s tyrannic rule. The charter established a more powerful parliament, granted some liberties of free men such as the right to a trial by jury before punishment and reduced the power of King John, whose rule was perceived as abusive especially toward people and in his imposition of high levies, even in the absence of war.
Its significance lies in the fact that it set limits on the power of the British monarchy by making the King subject to the law, meaning that from that point on, the British crown had to be accountable for their actions under the law, just like everyone else.
Let me handle your first question -- always good to do one question at a time here. :-)
Prior to President Theodore Roosevelt, those who preceded him in federal government had tended to side with industry leaders, expecting laborers to fall in line and do the work for the good of the companies. In 1902, when there was a particularly tense strike by coal workers, Roosevelt invited both sides (labor leaders and management leaders) to the White House to negotiate. This was an example of the way he saw the role of government leadership as "steward" to the nation, mediating on behalf of everyone's interests, not just the interests of a powerful small group. His "Square Deal" policies were aimed at making things fair and square for the general public. An example of this would be how much land was set aside under his administration as national forests, national parks, national monuments, etc. He was seeking to protect the use of the land for all Americans' interests, rather than letting corporations tear into any land or forest they wanted in order to grab natural resources.
Is there any answers to choose from? if not i would say a debit card.
Answer:
California votes should be disputed because all went to one candidate
Explanation:
