Although Berkeley was very one sided in his argument, he gives across both perspectives of the time. John Pym in source D also agrees that financial problems were a main grievance of the time, but he also states that there were more reasons for opposition, such as, “attacks on liberties of parliament” and “innovations in religion”. Pym says “Financial impositions are of great grievance. One bishop preaches that a subject’s property is at the king’s pleasure” showing that the
The Anglo-French alliance undermined Charles, which they hoped would seek to the freedom of the Pope. In 1527, the treaty of Amiens agreed that England would pay for a French attack on Charles. However with Wolsey’s focus on foreign policy and his efforts to try and obtain a divorce he neglected the domestic affairs of
In 1216 the Barons of England rebelled against King John, the Barons rebelled for a number of reasons, they include the trust between the King and the Barons, how John increased the taxes, the church and the rule breaking of the Magna Carta, some of the reasons were caused at the beginning of John’s reign, known as long term causes, and some of King John’s poor decisions triggered the rebellion, known as short term causes. One imperative reason that supports the fact why the Barons rebelled against King John was the fact that he did not ask their advice, a good King should always listen to the advice of the Barons. Instead he preferred to listen to the advice of foreign advisers such as Gerard d’ Athee. This annoyed the Barons and made them choose to not abide by the King. Consequently when he asked the Barons to provide an army to win back his land in France they refused.
Therefore the source suggests that Henry’s inability to enforce the ‘newly-imposed head tax’ contributed not only to a lack of funds for wars with France, but also his failure to combat the tax boycott ‘gave [James IV] hope of undertaking something’. Source 2 confirms what is being said in source 1 as it demonstrates that the threat was real, accounting how James did actually invade, taking advantage of Henry's absence, which confirms the suspicions of the Privy Council in source 1. Source 1 also implies that Henry may have had to abandon any plans made to invade France due to the possible Scottish invasion, 'against King Henry in his absence'. Yet the situation was double edged sword; if Henry chose to ignore the potential threat of a Scottish invasion and stayed to campaign in France, he risked the former actually coming true. If however, he decided to return to England in order to discourage James IV from attacking, he would lose progress in France.
A constitutional amendment takes an issue away from the normal process of democracy. However most proposals aren’t inspired by a broad national consensus but instead for political gains, e.g. the day after the Supreme Court ruled flag burning to be protected speech in 1989, the US representative Michael Bilirakis introduced an amendment outlawing desecration of the flag. Amendments to ban flag burning have been introduced in every session of Congress since, spanning more than two decades. Another reason why most proposed amendments fail to pass is the difficulties posed by the very complex amendment process.
The case was developed because Marbury did not receive his commission from the previous Secretary of State which was John Marshall. Adams hired 42 new justices of the peace, called the “midnight judges.” Marbury was named a new justice, but never received the commission and once Madison became the Secretary of State under Jefferson he never had them delivered. Marbury argued that he deserved the commission since he was already assigned the position. There were a few issues with this court case. One was: Did Marbury have the right to receive the commission?
The long term causes for the civil war were: Charles belief in the divine right of kings, Archbishop Laud’s reforms to the Church of England, money problems and the rise of parliament and Charles’ attempt to rule without parliament. The short term causes were the grand remonstrance, the Irish rebellion, Charles attempt to arrest 5 MPs and parliament’s attempt to take control over the army. Although both long term and short term causes can be split up into three different groups: political, economic and religious. The definition of a civil war is: A war between citizens and a leader of the same country. Although Charles did many bad and dangerous acts, it wasn’t only Charles fault the civil war started.
Henry pleads with the people to not deceive them. In the remaining paragraphs of Henry’s speech, reasons are given as to why he supposes that war is not only unavoidable but that it had actually already begun. In doing everything to avert the situation at hand, they were now prostrated in attempting reconciliation to England. Even though they had taken this position of the matter, England acted in response with tyrannical hands toward them. Henry viewed this response as violent and an insult.
This allowed Henry to eradicate any opposition that had potential to threaten Henry. The religious changes came to a halt in 1539, where Henry sends out a strong deterrent message by executing the architect of the religious changes, Cromwell. One of the groups who contributed disapproval was the clergy. This opposition had worrying potential to become serious because of the reputation of those who delivered it, for example More, who’s resistance was actually passive, did not actively deny the King’s title or offer any strong opposition to the regime, his trial was rigged and perjured evidence and the ruthlessness of his death meant that others refrained from open opposition to the King. In comparison, Fisher’s opposition was more vocal, he publicly condemned Henry getting an annulment from Catherine of Aragon, he was much more active in his opposition, delivering sermons and publishing books, an example of which being Sermon Against the Pernicious Doctrine of Martin Luther (1521).
Thomas Jefferson once claimed, “A democracy cannot be both ignorant and free.” (Thomas Jefferson) This was the commonly held attitude of the “enlightened” men who settled the United States. The inhabitants of the North American colonies did not have a legal right to express opposition to the British government that ruled them. Nonetheless, throughout the late 1700s, these early Americans did voice their discontent with the Crown. The early Americans also frequently criticized the much despised local representatives of the Crown. But they protested at their peril, for the English common law doctrine of "seditious libel" had been incorporated into the law of the American colonies, That doctrine permitted prosecution for "false, scandalous and