Answer:
Banishment and confistication of properties. His reason was treason.
Explanation:
In his second year as pope, Innocent faced the problem of heresy in Christianity. He referred to the heretics as people who were committing treasons against God.
for people to be spiritual disciplined he called on church authorities to use excommunication. Banishment and confistication of properties were also used against the heretics of the Albigensian and Waldensian movements.
His reasons were that the traitors were committing treasons against God and were offending divine majesty.
Answer: b. King George III
Details:
Jefferson provided a list of "facts to be submitted to a candid world" to demonstrate that the British king, George III, had been seeking to establish "an absolute Tyranny over these States" (the colonial states which were declaring their independence).
Jefferson's list included items such as:
- The king refused to assent to laws that were wholesome and necessary for the public good.
- The king had forbidden colonial governors to enact laws or implement laws without his assent (which, as the prior point noted, he was in no hurry to give).
- The king forced people to give up their rights to legislative assembly or forced legislative bodies to meet in difficult places that imposed hardships on them.
- The king dissolved legislative assemblies and then refused for a long time to have other assemblies elected.
- The king obstructed justice in the colonies and made judges dependent on his will alone for their salaries and their tenure in office.
- The king kept standing armies in place in the colonies in peacetime, without the consent of the colonial legislatures.
- The king imposed taxes without the colonists' consent.
These and additional items listed in the Declaration were meant to support the colonies' position that tyranny was standard operating procedure by the British monarchy, and therefore revolution was justified.
Adolf Hitler was born in <span>Braunau an Inn, Austria</span>
Answer: In Morse v. Frederick, the majority acknowledged that the Constitution affords lesser protections to certain types of student speech at school or at school-supervised events. ... As such, the state had an "important" if not "compelling" interest in prohibiting/punishing such student speech.
Explanation:
:)
