There is a widespread opinion on both sides of the Atlantic that as the Magna Carta is to the British attachment to rights, the American version of this attachment is to be found in the U.S. Bill of Rights. Sometimes we hear more: that not only the origin, but also the substance of the U.S. version, is to be found in the Magna Carta.
To be sure, we have to start the rights narrative somewhere and since participants in the rights debate over 400 years don’t seem inclined to go further back than the Magna Carta, it seems reasonable to start there. And despite the feudal language and medieval concerns that run through, and thus date, the document, there is something enduring there that appeals to subsequent generations.
We suggest that the enduring quality is an appeal through the centuries that those who govern us do so in a reasonable manner. And all the better to secure the proposition that rulers exercise their power in a reasonable manner, we write down what we think is unreasonable conduct. Thus a list of what those in authority can’t do emerges.
In particular, we might say that the Magna Carta calls for the rule of law in opposition to the rule of unreasonable men. Furthermore, the rule of law is to be secured by an attachment to the due process of law.
The question then is how much of the Magna Carta made its way into the U. S. Bill of Rights? The answer is 9 of the 26 provisions in the Bill of Rights can be traced back to the Magna Carta. That’s about a third or 33%. And these provisions are heavily concerned with the right to petition and the due process of law.
The Magna Carta does not call for an abolition of the monarchy or a change in the feudal order. Nor does it call for religious freedom or freedom of the press. The U.S. Bill of Rights, however, presupposes the abolition of monarchy and feudalism; the American appeal to natural rights raises the question of religious freedom and freedom of the press.
The correct answer is; False.
Further Explanation:
The American culture is known all over the world and so is the moral and political values that Americans have. Since the media reports on all of the United States political issues, and the issues our president has with other countries, most everyone knows about the political landscape in America.
The current President posts on social media and tweets to his enemies on a daily basis. This increases the media reporting. Both sides of the political parties will chime in on other social media and news on a daily basis. Many times our president will openly argue with leaders all over the free world on his social media accounts, at rallies, and in interviews.
Learn more about political values at brainly.com/question/11048271
#LearnwithBrainly
Explanation: The difference is who sues, as well as the potential penalties. Namely, when it comes to a civil case, a citizen can file a lawsuit against another citizen, say a neighbor, or against an organization, a company, and the like. In such cases, the sentence is usually not a prison sentence, but some other form of punishment as compensation, etc.
In a criminal case, it is usually the government, i.e. the competent prosecutor's office, which sues the citizen. This is usually considered a lawsuit against criminal activity by individuals or a group, which may be harmful to others or to the state as a whole. In that case, the sentence is usually imprisonment or some other type of punishment provided for the crime.
Answer:
The author writes that professor Hodous "has taken pains to exhibit and to interpret the religious life of the peasant as affected by Buddhism" To say that the book covers everyday Buddhist practice in addition to fundamental beliefs
Explanation:
The book " Buddhism and Buddhists in China" by Lewis Hodus explains the elements of Buddhism very thoroughly, meaning that he put all of his effort in writing it and in giving all the information to the people who are not part of this culture, and so does the author mentions when he analyses the work of Lewis Hodus
