ASAP... The first eight amendments to the Constitution reflect the struggles the colonists had with the British government’s rule over them. Pick two of those amendments and explain how it reflects British government abuses on Americans. Can someone just give me a couple examples of this please.

Answers

Answer 1

Answer:

Answer:

hey bella! i hope this will help you!

Explanation:

The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution and includes the basic privileges of all United States citizens. Many of the rights written in the amendments resulted from the shared experience of both the British and the American colonists under British rule. All the amendments reflect the t close ties between personal freedom and democracy as versioned by the founding fathers' generation (U.S. Department of State). Over the years, the definition of some rights has changed and new concepts, such as privacy, were added to the Constitution. But the rights of the people are the core of American democracy. In this way, the United States is unique in the world; its tradition of individual rights strongly reflects the American experience.

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Understanding the Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights remains an active force in contemporary American life as a major element of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. The meaning of its protections remains hotly debated. For example, the privilege to bear arms to support a militia, which appears in the second amendment, produces significant political controversy today.

More sweepingly, the extension of the Bill of Rights to protect individuals from abuse not only by the federal government, but also from state and local governments remains an unsettled aspect of Constitutional interpretation.

Originally, the protections were solely meant to limit the federal government, but with the fourteenth amendment's guarantee in 1868 that no state could deprive its citizens of the protections in the Bill of Rights this original view began to be expanded. To this day the SUPREME COURT has not definitively decided if the entire Bill of Rights should always be applied to all levels of government.

Related Questions

Why do you think the leaders of the new nation did not want a president or king
Which statement best describes trade in medieval Europe
Which of the following was a source of tension between English colonists and Native Americans?
How would King Louis XIV palace affect the people in France
What was the Herbert hoover's vice?

How are ancient Native American leaders similar to ancient Egyptians leaders

Answers

Answer:

How were ancient Native American leaders similar to ancient Egyptian leaders? Leaders of both cultures controlled the local economy. Leaders of both cultures used a system to control society Leaders of both cultures were elected by the people. Leaders of both cultures were worshipped as gods.

Explanation:

The southern transition to black slave labor in the last quarter of the seventeenth century might be explained by the ___.

Answers

Answer:

The correct answer is that the southern transition to black salve labor in the last quarter of the 17th century can be explained by the rise of slave trade.

Explanation:

As a ot of Africans were being kidnapped from their countries and brought to the Americas, many of them were being sold into slavery.

What is one major result of two countries choosing to specialize in theproduction of different goods?

A. Each country is more likely to pay high opportunity costs for

production

B. Each country is more likely to trade for the goods the other

produces.

C. Each country is more likely to become economically self-

sufficient.

D. Each country is more likely to experience a decling in voluntary

exchange.

Answers

Each country is more likely to trade for the goods the other produce.

Why should countries specialize in producing goods?

Countries become better at making the product they specialize in. Consumer benefits: Specialization means that the opportunity cost of production is lower, which means that globally more goods are produced and prices are lower. Consumers benefit from these lower prices and greaterquantities of goods.

What are two reasons for country specialization?

Countries specialize so that opportunitycosts can be increased. Countries specialize to excel in the production of specificgoods and services. Countries specialize to make the most efficient use of their unique set of resources.

Learn more about country specialization here brainly.com/question/1178399

#SPJ2

Answer: B

Explanation:

Recently there has been discussion in the news about taxing junk food (soft drinks, for example) in an effort to reduce the incidence of obesity in the U.S. Do you think the demand for junk food is elastic or inelastic with respect to price?Based on your knowledge of the price elasticity of demand, do you think the deadweight loss of a soda/junk-food tax would be relatively large or relatively small? Why? Do you think taxing junk food would be a good idea? Based on your analysis, would it really help reduce the number of obese people in the United States? Explain please give me details.

Answers

Answer:

Throughout the clarification segment elsewhere here, the definition including its concern is mentioned.

Explanation:

Through me, the demand for amounts of unhealthy food seems to be inelastic in terms of costs. I acknowledge that as the cost goes up, consumers will consume less junk food, but perhaps the decrease in the supply is lower than that of the rising rise. It might be because, already though, substitutes for junk foods, particularly across the Us, are challenging to find. Unhealthy food is just the shortest and simplest meal to consume.
The reasoning here seems to be that every customer would have to purchase food even though the price rises by 1%, so consumption will still decrease by somewhere around 1%. So perhaps we can assume that quality does not influence quantities throughout the Junk Food industry.
The reduction of excess baggage would be small since it is inelastic. This symbolizes the corporation's low incompetence and as the cost is changed, the market for quantities is approximately the same, not so much impact.
I thought taxing junk foods, especially to maximize welfare spending, is a smart option. But obesity over here Is not going to help. The incorrect method for combating obesity as well as making our diets balanced is taxes. The irony is that all clients are impacted by taxes regardless of their weight status. The impact of food taxes is unclear and may result in the replacement of items that may comprise of calories that seem to be equivalent or higher.

Final answer:

The demand for junk food is typically inelastic, meaning a small price increase from a tax wouldn't significantly reduce demand. The deadweight loss would be relatively small. A junk food tax could potentially promote healthier choices, but it's not guaranteed to lower obesity levels alone.

Explanation:

The demand for junk food is generally seen as inelastic because these are often low-cost pleasure products that many consumers are willing to purchase even with a slight increase in price. The price elasticity of demand refers to how sensitive the quantity demanded of a good is to a change in its price. In the case of junk food, a small price increase may not significantly reduce demand.

The deadweight loss refers to the inefficient allocation of resources, in this case resulting from the imposition of a tax. For an inelastic demand good like junk food, the deadweight loss would be relatively small because the quantity demanded does not decrease significantly with an increase in price. However, the impact on obesity rates is not clear cut since it also depends on people's dietary choices and lifestyle habits.

Implementing a junk food tax could be a good measure in incentivizing healthier choices, but it's not the only solution. The overall effect would also heavily depend on supplementary measures, like education on healthy eating and promotion of physical activity. Therefore, simply taxing junk food might not significantly reduce the number of obese people in the United States.