Answer:
British settlement of North America began at a time when the idea that Englishmen were entitled to a special heritage of rights and liberties was quickly gaining ground. Even at its earliest stages, the colonists imported language reflecting this heritage into the legal and political arrangements of the communities they founded. In 1606, in the First Charter of Virginia, for example, King James I (reigned 1603–1625) guaranteed to the colonists and their posterity all of the “liberties, franchises, and immunities” possessed by anyone born in England. Every colonial charter included similar provisions.
The crucial importance that Sir Edward Coke attributed to Magna Carta as the basic guarantee of English rights in England was likewise reflected in the laws of the colonies. For instance, at Ipswich, Massachusetts, in 1641, Nathaniel Ward, a jurist and Puritan minister who came to America in 1634, compiled “The Body of Liberties” (later, the basis of Massachusetts law), which contained a synopsis of Magna Carta’s guarantees of freedom from unlawful imprisonment or execution, unlawful seizure of property, right to a trial by jury, and guarantee of due process of law. Over time, all of the colonies adopted language from Magna Carta to guarantee basic individual liberties.
Explanation:
Answer:
insecurities
Explanation:
Emotional insecurity or simply insecurity is state of uneasiness caused by impression of oneself, feeling inferior or something that threatens one's self-image or ego.
Bri might think that her husband finds his coworker more attractive or smarter. In essence she feels that her husband might find his coworker better than Bri. Bri thinks that she lacks the characteristics that her husband's coworker has, which makes Bri jealous.
This is the kind of concept a utilitarian would agree on. If the result is positive for a large group of people, we should seriously consider doing it.
However, I would like to comment on this concept. In my opinion (and that's what you're asking for) there are situations in which the ends don't justify the means. You can e.g. think about mass-bombings to fight against terrorism. However, the possibility exists that innocent people will be hit, and will die. Therefore, the end don't always justify the means (in my opinion).
Answer:
The initiative would be your answer.
hope it helps!
