<em>D. Is The Answer</em>
Explanation:
Shays' Rebellion originally started due to outrage of the economy and how there was literally nothing the colonists could do about it. Congress couldn't pass anything since the states had too much power and couldn't rally up any sort of military or anything. Shays' Rebellion didn't completely make the US Constitution however it did influence more and more people that something had to happen otherwise the country would eventually die out and mass revolution would begin.
True, Mary Magdalene thought the risen Jesus was a gardener
Answer:
In accounting, minority interest (or non-controlling interest) is the portion of a subsidiary corporation's stock that is not owned by the parent corporation.Also, minority interest is reported on the consolidated income statement as a share of profit belonging to minority shareholders.
hope this helps
"<span>Injunctive" </span>norms address people's perceptions of what other people approve of whereas "descriptive" norms address people's perceptions of what other people actually do.
Two types of norms are applicable to a social standards approach: descriptive norms and injunctive norms. Injunctive norms include impression of which practices are regularly affirmed or opposed. Descriptive norms include impression of which practices are ordinarily performed. They ordinarily allude to the impression of others' conduct.
Answer:
For many centuries, natural law was recognized as a type of higher law that spelled out universal truths for the moral ordering of society based on a rational understanding of human nature. As a higher moral law, it gave citizens a standard for determining if the written laws and customs of their nation or any other nation were just or unjust, right or wrong, humane or inhumane. Today, natural law is not discussed very much, at least not explicitly. When mentioned at all, it is usually rejected as dangerous because it undermines existing laws or as intolerant because it is contrary to “multiculturalism,” which requires the non-judgmental acceptance of other cultures.
This negative view of natural law can be traced to Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), whose writings are largely devoted to showing the anarchy and civil wars caused by appeals to natural and divine laws above the will of the sovereign. Hobbes rejected traditional higher law doctrines and encouraged people to accept the established laws and customs of their nations, even if they seemed oppressive, for the sake of civil peace and security. His critique has been a leading cause of the demise of natural law and the acceptance of positive law as the only reliable guide for political authority.
One may be equally surprised to learn, however, that many people today embrace a different (and seemingly contradictory) view of natural law, and this too is traceable to Thomas Hobbes. For example, when conscientious people are confronted with violations of human rights—as in religious theocracies that violate women’s rights or in countries that allow sweatshops to trample on worker’s rights—they feel compelled to protest the injustice of those practices and to change them for the better. The protesters usually deny that they are following natural law, but they obviously are asserting a belief in universal moral truths that are grounded in human nature—in this case, the natural equality of human beings that underlies human rights. This understanding of higher law originates with Hobbes because he was largely responsible for transforming classical natural law into modern natural rights, thereby beginning the “human rights revolution” in thinking on natural law. How is it possible for Hobbes and his followers to embrace seemingly contradictory views of natural law, rejecting one form as intolerant, self-righteous, and anarchical, while embracing another form as the universal ideal of social justice? Let us turn to Hobbes for an answer to this puzzle, and, in so doing, uncover the sources of our modern conceptions of law, rights, and justice.
