The question above I believe is incomplete and has multiple answers. They include;
a) He believes that his actions were justified based on his kinship with all living beings.
b) He believes that the Espionage Act is contradictory to democratic principles and freedom
c) He stands in opposition to the current political system.
d) He denies being in violation of the Espionage Act.
The correct answer is (B). The link provided supports my answer.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1918/court.htm
I think it's the tax commissioner but i'm not sure.
Portugal was originally only concerned about establishing forts and trading posts so as to protect the sea route to Asia. As time progressed, they began to see the benefit of establishing more permanent settlements. These permanent settlements would result in the expansion of their political influence. The exploration idea of God, Glory, and Gold also fit. The more permanent settlements would allow the Portuguese missionaries to also further expand and share their beliefs with the African Peoples.
I’m pretty sure it’s about how Gibbons was sued by Ogden for violating the monopoly given to him.
Answer:
Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear, these are the four freedoms the president Roosevelt outlines in his speech after pearl harbor. In the speech he talks about where the country is going and what we as a people have to do. The bill of rights has a similar propose, defining the values of a new country and the responsibilities we have in upholding them. They also have many of the same ideals being shown.
Now many of the articles are not comparable such as Article the tenth “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” but some work very well. The sentiment in article eleven and five for example really reminds me of freedom of fear. We have troops protecting us and we don't need to be scared of our rights being taken away because we are guaranteed them in the constitution. Freedom of speech and freedom of worship with the third article is the most obvious pairing. The one I am having the hardest time with is freedom from want. What does that even mean and why is it important enough to be mixed in with free speech but if it is so important then why is there no good parallel in the bill of rights. This one is specific to the four freedoms because it's more of an ask than a gift. Be free of your wants and consumerism and give some things up for the greater good of america. There isn't an ask for a favor in the bill of rights but right then after pearl harbor the country needed to be reminded of what they have been given by their country and now what they need to give back.
1. Freedom of speech 2. Freedom of worship 3. Freedom from want 4. Freedom from fear The first amendment covers the first two as has been stated. "Freedom from want? Really? I can't always get what I want at the store and I am willing to pay for it. This is not a "freedom"; you have the freedom to buy or make what you want but you don't have any freedon to just have what you want. Even in socialist countries they don't have it. In socialism your only freedom is to do as you are told by the one in power. You don't have any rights. Freedom from fear? There is no way anyone can be free of fear, and certainly no way any government can provide that to individuals. Here is the Bill of Rights, Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and topetition the Government for a redress of grievances. Right to keep and bear arms A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Conditions for quarters of soldiers No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time ofwar, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
