The correct answer to this question is D. This is because A, implies that the Declaration of Independece guarantees the individual rights, but it briefly mentions some of this freedoms, such as those of life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness in order to argue the reaons why the decision of the States to declare themselves independent from the British Crown, so it does not really explain these rights.
Regarding B, the bill of rights, that is, the first 10 Ammendments of the Constitution, does not deal with the reasons for revolution, as this body of ammendments is the result of the evolution of the society, its needs and demands: they were created along the time, as a result of a process, so they are not entirely linked to the reasons for the revolution.
And finally, C probably best describes the Constitution, which is the one that creates the Government as it certainly outlines its structure as we see it today, and in any case replaces the Declaration of Independence which doesn´t really deal with the creation of the Government.
As a conclusion, the Declaration of Independence is the political statement which sets the will of the new nation, whereas the Constitution, as the result of this initial statement, creates the Government, that at the same time, recognizes the individual rights as an expression of the Declaration and is adopted by the Constitution to guarantee the enforceability of these Rights.
Hmmm.....I'd say it was probably depressing lol
<span>In the question "As time went on, how did the Russian people view their country's participation in World War 1", the correct answer is A" They opposed it because of the high casualty rate. As so many soldiers were being killed, the war felt unnecessary for Russia to take part in; the people were not persuaded to fight on any side or partake in a failing war.</span><span />
The Mongols treated the non-muslim subjects most fairly, while the Ottomans treated them the least fairly.
The Mongols were religiously tolerant because they conquered and rule through manpower rather than religion. The Ottomans were the least fair to non-muslims. It is close between the Umayyads and the Ottomans, but the only difference is the amount of discrimination (per se) held against non-muslims. While the Umayyads only had the jizya (tax paid if you were non-muslim), the Ottomans had distinctive restrictions on non-muslims. They had dress codes according to their religion and could only reside in neighborhoods who's residents were of the same religion (under the Ottomans).
Well I think the correct answer is C arguments about the right of Indians in French North America
