This does not make sense can you Abbreviate so I can help
Answer:
1.No protection for the common man
2.Divide and rule
Explanation:
1.No protection for the common man: There is no protection for the common man as the leaders itself try to misuse or misbehave in public. Even security personnel and police treat injustice differently. They favor those in power or wealthy and neglect or even cause trouble to those who are sick or weak socially.
2.Divide and rule: The leaders try to play divide and rule games. They, divide the people based on religion, caste, languages, etc. and try to gain votes to get power though there are not worthy to rule the state or country.
The answer is C, as Buddhists rejected it due to the assignment of value it proposed upon others. =)
Thomas Jefferson argued that individuals had the right to freedom of speech and freedom of elections. tax, raise an army, or suspend laws.
Answer:James McCulloch v. The State of Maryland, John James
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that defined the scope of the U.S. Congress's legislative power and how it relates to the powers of American state legislatures. The dispute in McCulloch involved the legality of the national bank and a tax that the state of Maryland imposed on it. In its ruling, the Supreme Court established firstly that the "Necessary and Proper" Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. federal government certain implied powers that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, and secondly that the American federal government is supreme over the states, and so states' ability to interfere with the federal government is limited
The state of Maryland had attempted to impede an operation by the Second Bank of the United States through a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was thus recognized in the court's opinion as having specifically targeted the Bank of the United States. The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allows the federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers if the laws are useful to further the express powers of Congress under the Constitution.
