Evidence that the powers of leaders should be limited us given by<u> B. </u><u>citing incidences</u><u> of </u><u>violence </u><u>that arise when religious or government </u><u>leaders </u><u>go</u><u> too far</u><u> in </u><u>exerting power.</u>
You did not include the text in question but this should be the correct answer.
When power is unlimited:
- It can sometimes be abused it because leaders will not know where to stop
- Leaders might overexert their power such that it leads to violence as people rebel and they try to enforce their right to rule.
This is what happened in the American Revolution, the French Revolution and the partly in the Glorious Revolution (there was no violence here but it happened because the King wanted to overexert himself).
We can therefore conclude that power should be limited unless it could lead to violence as all powerful leaders go too far in exerting their authority.
<em>Find out more at brainly.com/question/18227348.</em>
The Neutrality Act<span> lifted the arms embargo which allowed for weapons to resume trade. It also put all trade with belligerent nations </span>under<span> the terms of “cash-and-carry.”
I hope this helped!! :)</span>
<span>
Germany had just successfully invaded France.
</span>
The primary goal of the American Foreign Missionary Society was D. " to establish missions in lands west of the Mississippi River", although a better answer would be to "abolish slavery".
Us conception of liberty by defense of the natural rights of citizen while the Soviet idea of defense by making sure the enemy is scared to attack.
Explanation:
The Cuban missile crisis was in a sense an idea of what the people on both sides of the government believed was useful for their own country's safety.
Each wanted to intimidate the other into believing that they were more powerful and that they would be destroyed if they ever attack.
This escalated the matters so drastically that there were missiles in Cuba pointed to Us while the US also had its idea of defense and planted similar missiles in the Central Asia.
This was essentially an idea of liberty by the show of might on the both sides.