I've seen this question before -- I'm guessing you're working with a chapter on European Renaissance and Reformation that featured a secondary source (source B) reference from historian Steve Ozment. In document A, from a letter to the pope sent by Martin Luther, Luther accused the Roman Catholic Church of having become a den of thieves, that the whole hierarchy needed reform. That early letter (from 1520) supports Ozment's claim that Luther's Reformation movement began as a protest against "arbitrary, self-aggrandizing hierarchical authority" in the church.
The main characteristic of an ideal republic is that decisions at the state level are made in the best interest of a majority of people, and that the federal power and state (or smaller) power share responsibility for that.
It limited the power of the king. - correct. It limited the power of the king making him respect economic rights, respect the rule of law, the fairness of the law and due process.
It gave the king’s government more control. - Incorrect. Magna Carta was made because nobles were tired of a tyranic king.
It stated that individuals were equal. - Incorrect. Magna Carta didnt make all individuals equal, you can see it clearly when barons had the privilege to serve as consultants and other people didnt.
It established due process. - Correct. if someone was accused by a crime for example, they would be given a proper trial and be judged by their peers.
It led to the creation of a legislative branch. - correct. The nobles forced the king to sign the Magna Carta, and with it came a clause that made barons serve as consultants to the king.
It reduced the rights of citizens. - Incorrect. It gave more rights to citizens.
The main reason why Great Britain was determined to exercise imperialism in the Middle East was to actually keep control over the Suez Canal. This canal provided the shortest route of transport between Great Britain and its colonies in Asia. Without this route, Britain would have had difficulties controlling the Asian colonies.
Answer:
No.
Explanation:
No, Individual Mississippians does not have the power to change society because one individual is not enough for bringing change in the society, it needs a large number of people. When a large number of people decides to bring change in the society, it will happens due to the struggle of large number of people. A single person doesn't have the ability to bring change alone, he needs a group of people.
