Indeed, it is not difficult to see that there might have legal arguments as to whether the power to end the war and manage ?

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Although it is a statement, with no question, we can comment on the following.

Indeed, it is not difficult to see that there might have legal arguments as to whether the power to end the war and manage the peace negotiations.

When a war is ended, there is so much pain, suffering, and destruction as a consequence of the war. The winner has the advantage of writing the peace terms to reach an agreement and sign a peace treaty. Most of the time, the winner tries to take advantage of its position and sign peace terms that benefit the winner and oppress the defeated country.

1. the group that formally abolished the monarchy was the roundheads. after the monarchy was abolished, the english commonwealth was created. it was led by oliver cromwell, who later took the title lord protector. this leader was a puritan, meaning that he supported removing catholic rituals from the church of england.

2. identify a central idea in the bill of rights.

a.   the monarch could only exercise power as stated in the law.

3. ascended the english throne as   a joint monarch after accepting   the bill of rights   mary ii

appointed catholics as government   officials and recruited them in the   army

james ii

conquered ireland and established   the commonwealth

oliver cromwell

lost a long, bloody civil war against   forces loyal to parliament

charles i

was crowned king after a period   of commonwealth rule in england

charles ii

4. identify two effects of the glorious revolution on the english monarchy.

the idea of monarchs ruling by divine right was rejected.

a limited, constitutional monarchy was established.

5. what are two ways the bill of rights opposes the idea of the divine right of kings?

it stated that the monarch's power was subject to limits set by parliament.

it abolished the role of the monarch as the head of the church of england.

1. the townshend acts of 1767 “threaten the country with poverty and ruin.”

at a town meeting held at faneuil hall in boston on october 28, 1767, boston freeholders and residents discussed the implications of the brutal townshend acts levied against the colonists. the townshend acts were a set of four acts passed by the british parliament in the summer of 1767 in order to generate revenue for the crown (through duties on goods such as lead, glass, paper, and tea) as well as exert british control over the increasingly rebellious colonists.

during the oct. 28 meeting, the bostonians found:

the excessive use of foreign superfluities is the chief cause of the present distressed state of this town, as it is thereby drained of its money: which misfortune is likely to be increased by means of the late additional burthens and impositions on the trade of the province, which threaten the country with poverty and ruin.

as a result, the citizens unanimously voted to boycott all british-made goods.