The answer is option 4: <u>He believed in the absolute power of kings.</u>
The England King James I (who ruled from 1603 to1625) clashed with the Parliament's ideas several times for his persistent belief in the absolute power of kings, justified for their divine right, which enabled him to rule over all their subjects without interference from anyone. Instead, the Parliament believed that the King must not rule alone, doing all that he pleased.
They both had very different views on how royal finances had to be handled as well as foreign affairs, for example, the Parliament members held that tax collection was an issue that had to be approved by them in order to improve the crown's finances, which had been seriously weakened by the long war with Spain (1585-1604), as for James I, he wanted to collect the taxes on his own, whose purpose wasn't only to improve the government but also to over-spend on his luxury way of living.
The answer is falls. The quantity demanded falls. Hope this helps:)
Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision for the Supreme Court. It supported <span>Schenck's conviction, saying it did not violate his First Amendment right of speech. </span>
Answer:
Brahmin power is a fiction - India was always ruled by kings not priests. Buddha himself was a scion of a royal family as were many other sages and enlightened beings.
Buddhism was never a political movement - it was about achieving freedom from suffering not about power and prestige.
Buddha like many of his contemporaries among the Hindus and the Jain challenged many of the philosophical positions of each other but socially lived in cooperation and harmony.
Explanation:
hope you enjoy
