I think the check and balances system work really well in united states.
This system prevent the government from becoming too tyrannical because it separate our government into legislative, executive, and judiciary branch.
If, one government handles all these three, the government could basically violate the law and directly change the law after that so it wouldn't be considered a crime
The correct answer is the principle of <em>Habeas Corpus</em>. Indeed, the Magna Carta charter declared that:
“No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land.”
And the United States Constitution very explicitly declares in its Article one, Suspension Clause number 2 that:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it".
This was especially important since during the Revolutionary War, the British arrested lots of people arbitrarily and also abused them and denied them legal representation.
The right answer for the question that is being asked and shown above is that: "d) decisions of British autorities to end immigration to the colonies." In the 1760s, Americans in the original thirteen British colonies began to protest against decisions of British autorities to end immigration to the colonies<span>
</span>
False. if you research him it says otherwise haha
I think its b because its talking about the government
