In the declaration of independence whom did the americans indict for repeated injuries and usurpations

In the Declaration of Independence, the Americans indicted King George III, the King of Great Britain, for repeated injuries and usurpations

Explanation:

As part of the Declaration of Independence states: The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

Thomas Jefferson, on behalf of the Thirteenth American Colonies, wrote this document to declare their independence and sovereignty and to formally announce the causes that impelled them to the separation from King George III's rule (the King of Great Britain at the moment). In fact, a big part of the document list a series of grievances and complaints against Britain rule, such as the imposition of taxes on the colonists without their consent, the deprivation of the benefits of trial by jury, the repeatedly dissolution of the Representative Houses that opposed the king's invasions on the rights of the people and others.

the california missions began in the late 18th century as an effort to convert native americans to catholicism and expand european territory. there were 21 missions in all, lasting from 1769 until about 1833.   the missions were built by the spanish starting in 1769 in order to “colonize” the territory of alta california. so the missions were important because they were the means of settling california. it also wanted to keep other european countries out of alta california. building settlements along the coast would them meet these goals. missionaries wanted to convert the indians to the roman catholic faith. california indians did much of the work to build missions.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is