Answer:
There are differing responses to this question, depending on which character provides the answer. Casca explains to Brutus and Cassius that, in the arena, Caesar refused the crown every time Antony offered it because each time he refused, the crowd responded uproariously. Casca observes that “he would fain have had it,” implying that Caesar’s refusal was, essentially, theater and that he was simply pandering to the crowd. On the other hand, Antony uses the same incident to reveal that Caesar refused the crown because he was not ambitious or power-hungry. However, it’s more likely that Caesar’s motivations were as Casca implies: Caesar theatrically refused the crown to further secure the hearts and minds of the people, and he fully intended to accept the crown when the senate officially offered it to him.
Explanation:
Answer:
B
Explanation:
If you don't worry about having a positive attitude toward them you wouldn't be tolerant if there were a mishappening. If you overlook their performance or don't call attention to problems when things are going poorly, you will not help them and you could be also part of the problems you are avoiding.
Answer:
They could veto any law or magistrate thus the answer is D:)
Explanation:
Yes, the crime still would have been committed. Falsification of documents and false representations are crimes, irrespective of their consequences.
However. If Mills had paid, Pivowar would never have come to know about the false representation and the case would not have come to court. Whether the case comes to the court or it does not, is an independent factor of whether a crime has been committed.
A crime is an offense punishable by state or other authority. The term crime does not have a simple, generally accepted definition in modern criminal law, but a statutory definition is provided for specific purposes.
Learn more about crime here:brainly.com/question/6203610
#SPJ4
