The main purpose of both documents is to assert the rights and freedoms of the people to form their own governments -- governments which will protect their rights as citizens.
Historical context:
The Declaration of Independence (1776) asserted the American colonies' decision to break away from British government. It included the same Enlightenment ideals of natural rights and liberties that would characterize the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen produced later (1789) in France.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen is a fundamental document of the French Revolution, which was written by Abbé Sieyès and the Marquis de Lafayette. Abbé Sieyès was a prominent clergyman in France who supported the rights of the common people. The Marquis de Lafayette was a member of the nobility who had fought in America's war for independence against Britain. Their document was written in consultation with Thomas Jefferson of the United States, who had drafted the Declaration of Independence.
No clue what to say to this, i've seen it posted on this website here before tho
This was to make sure trade could flow as smoothly as possible. I hope this answer helps!
<span>Most did not strike it rich, but they remained in California and bettered the state's infrastructure. This was because they were a ready labor force, and the amount of gold in the gold fields had been wildly exaggerated. There just was not enough gold for all of the forty niners to strike it rich.</span>
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
I am going to choose the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The three specific arguments in favor of why this Amendment is necessary in a democratic society are the following.
1.- One of the most important characteristics of modern democratic societies is that citizens are free. Without freedom, there is no democracy.
2.- People have their own set of belief systems and they will always have them. It is intrinsic to human nature. No matter what religion people profess, it is their right.
3.- The right to assemble in a peaceful way to exchange ideas, no matter what kind of ideas, it's part of any democratic government and society in the world.
The two arguments against why this Amendment may no longer be necessary in today's America.
1.- It is so implicit that citizens have rights that will come a day in which this value of liberty would have no need to be part of a Bill of Rights.
2.- Science and the use of logic could be a substitute for the ingraining belief that people need religion to have something to believe in. When science could be able to explain it all through the use of reason, maybe there won't be the necessity to include freedom of religion as part of the Bill of Rights.
