Question for analysis
1. What abuses of royal power seem to have most disturbed the authors of the English Bill of Rights?
A: The abuses of royal power that seem to have the most disturbed the authors of the English bill of rights would be of any kind of absolutive activities would be an abuse of an world power. And so that means no full of control of royal authority, just limitation of royal author.
2. Where the authors of the bill of rights most concerned with political, economic, or religious issues?
A: The authors of the bill of rights were most concerned with all three of these issues, in which the land owner, merchant, and lawyer who dominated the house of common had fought the monarchy over these issues.
3. What role does the bill of rights envision for the English crown? A: What role the bill of rights envisioned for the English crown is for to have parliamentary limitations under royal authority, in act as more of an figure head.
4. When the bill of rights speaks of "rights," to whose rights does it refer?
A: When the bill of rights speaks of “rights”, those rights refer to the people, and so then the people are given their own right, in which royal authority cannot interfere with.
5. In what ways might the common people of the England benefit from the bill of right?
A: The ways the common people of the England made benefit from the bill of rights would be to have a freedom to which no one can change or disagree with and so maybe for example, if it is a right to express freedom of speech, you can use that right to maybe advertise anything you want.
6. If given the opportunity, how might bossuet (source30) have criticized the premises of the English bill of rights?
A: Bossuet might have criticized the premises of the English bill of rights by him saying that royal authority is absolute, and this criticizes the English bill of rights, because it itself places parliamentary limitations on royal authority.
A: The abuses of royal power that seem to have the most disturbed the authors of the English bill of rights would be of any kind of absolutive activities would be an abuse of an world power. And so that means no full of control of royal authority, just limitation of royal author.
2. Where the authors of the bill of rights most concerned with political, economic, or religious issues?
A: The authors of the bill of rights were most concerned with all three of these issues, in which the land owner, merchant, and lawyer who dominated the house of common had fought the monarchy over these issues.
3. What role does the bill of rights envision for the English crown? A: What role the bill of rights envisioned for the English crown is for to have parliamentary limitations under royal authority, in act as more of an figure head.
4. When the bill of rights speaks of "rights," to whose rights does it refer?
A: When the bill of rights speaks of “rights”, those rights refer to the people, and so then the people are given their own right, in which royal authority cannot interfere with.
5. In what ways might the common people of the England benefit from the bill of right?
A: The ways the common people of the England made benefit from the bill of rights would be to have a freedom to which no one can change or disagree with and so maybe for example, if it is a right to express freedom of speech, you can use that right to maybe advertise anything you want.
6. If given the opportunity, how might bossuet (source30) have criticized the premises of the English bill of rights?
A: Bossuet might have criticized the premises of the English bill of rights by him saying that royal authority is absolute, and this criticizes the English bill of rights, because it itself places parliamentary limitations on royal authority.