Colonist governors appointed by the king and legislatures elected by colonists tended to agree with the British that owning property was related to having the right to vote.
British rule inside the colonies turned into enforced by means of the colonial governor. He become typically appointed by way of the King and he served as the leader regulation enforcement officer in the colony. The governor seemed all powerful. however the royal governors often met decided resistance from colonial assemblies.
The governor became responsible for handling the legislative assemblies in top and decrease Canada, but remained the most effective British authority in force in North the us. He held civil and army powers and managed sales from crown lands.
As was the Crown's representative in the colony, the governor acted according to his official Instructions and the Letters Patent which constituted the colony's constitution. At one and the same time, he was head of the colonial government and the agent of the imperial (British) government.
Learn more about Colonist governors here:
brainly.com/question/12894228
#SPJ4
C. They had no rights under the law
Answer:
<h3>The comparison and contrast of Davis and Moore’s functionalist perspective of social stratification with Mosca’s conflict perspective of social stratification lies on the concept of social position and power.</h3>
Explanation:
Davis and Moore's functionalist perspective of social stratification and Mosca’s conflict perspective of social stratification all emphasize on the presence of a power structure in a society which directly corresponds to the position of an individual. They all believed that society operates according to the social needs and that every individual performs their tasks accordingly.
The line of distinction between Davis and Moore's functionalist perspective and Mosca’s conflict perspective lies in the nature of men. Mosca believes that man is evil and dominating by nature and that compels him/her to misuse his position. He brings out the authority and power of the ruling class as an example to this argument. He argues that people in good position will eventually become more powerful as men are ambitious and selfish. They will gradually exploit people from lower position and use their power for their own personal gains.
While on the other hand, Davis and Moore argue that the greater the role of an individual is, the greater should be the reward. They illustrate the idea that people with bigger and greater roles should be given more importance because of their greater contributions to the society. Their perspective of social stratification emphasize that not everyone can perform the exclusive task of the doctors, therefore those who could perform such complicated tasks should be paid and rewarded more. Davis and Moore do not consider misuse of position and power by people of great influence.
In my opinion, Davis and Moore’s functionalist perspective of social stratification is more applicable and realistic. The fact that those who worked hard deserves a reward is a universal doctrine. These people spent a lot of effort and time before acquiring the position they are in today. Their effort and hard work should be rewarded greatly as they will contribute significantly to the society. Though, this perspective does not bring into account the chances of misuse of power and position, such elements can be controlled through efficient law and state control.
Answer:
bill of rights, originally established to provide services and benefits to the veterans of world war II the servicemen readjustments 1944, also known as the GI. the ACT put higher education, job training, and homeownership within the reach of millions of world war two veterans.
Explanation:
I hope this helped
