Answer:
They wont trust it because its a opinion so it isn't trust worthy.
Explanation:
Answer:
- It overthrew King James II, replacing him with William III of Orange and Mary II of England.
- A constitutional monarchy was established
- The Creation of the Bill of Rights of 1689
Explanation:
The Glorious Revolution (1688-1689) was a political event that saw the King James II of England being overthrown in a mostly bloodless revolution, being replaced by William III of Orange and Mary II of England. James II, himself a Catholic, had to face with strong anti-Catholic sentiments in the British isles. As the situation became more and more heated, his attempts to control it eroded his political legitimacy. William of Orange, the leader of the Dutch Republic and a Protestant, gathered a powerful fleet that invaded the British isles and marched on London. As the English army failed to put any resistance and even defected to the Protestant invaders, James II was forced to flee. A specially convened Parliament assembled in 1689 deposed James II and declared William III and Mary II the legitimate rulers England, Scotland and Ireland. Later that same year, the Parliament passed the Bill of Rights of 1689 which, among other things, signalled the transformation of the British crown from an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy. Severely curtailing the power of the monarch, many of the most important decisions could no longer be taken by the monarch without Parliament's approval, like approving taxes, suspending laws, or summoning an army. With some modifications, the Bill of Rights is still in force in Britain and other countries part of the Commonwealth.
The government has continued to pursue antitrust prosecutions since World War II. The Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department watch for potential monopolies or act to prevent mergers that threaten to reduce competition so severely that consumers could suffer. Four cases show the scope of these efforts:
In 1945, in a case involving the Aluminum Company of America, a federal appeals court considered how large a market share a firm could hold before it should be scrutinized for monopolistic practices. The court settled on 90 percent, noting "it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-five percent would be enough, and certainly thirty-three percent is not."
In 1961, a number of companies in the electrical equipment industry were found guilty of fixing prices in restraint of competition. The companies agreed to pay extensive damages to consumers, and some corporate executives went to prison.
In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a combination of firms with large market shares could be presumed to be anti-competitive. The case involved Philadelphia National Bank. The court ruled that if a merger would cause a company to control an undue share of the market, and if there was no evidence the merger would not be harmful, then the merger could not take place.
In 1997, a federal court concluded that even though retailing is generally unconcentrated, certain retailers such as office supply "superstores" compete in distinct economic markets. In those markets, the merger of two substantial firms would be anti-competitive, the court said. The case involved a home office supply company, Staples, and a building supply company, Home Depot. The planned merger was dropped.
President Harry S. Truman
The phrase refers to make the notion that the President has to make decisions and accept the ultimate responsibility for those decisions
Hope this helped! :)
Answer:
it would tell us what it was like to be on the front lines during the war
Explanation:
