Law
Historian's interpretation #1: Modified Excerpts from TheIdeological Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn(1967)The Declaration of Independence represents the colonists' deepestfears and beliefs. The colonists believed they saw a clear pattern inthe events that followed 1763. They believed they saw an evil anddeliberate conspiracy to crush liberty in America. They saw evidenceof this conspiracy in the Stamp Act and in the Coercive Acts.They also believed that America was destined to play a special role inhistory. They believed that America would become "the foundation ofa great and mighty empire, the largest the world ever saw to befounded on such princi of liberty and freedom, both civil andreligious." The colonists believed that England was trying to enslavethem, and that they should use "all the power which God has giventhem" to protect themselves.Historian's interpretation #2: Modified Excerpts from APeople's History of the United States by Howard Zinn (1980)It seemed clear to the educated, upper-class colonists that somethingneeded to be done to persuade the lower class to join therevolutionary cause, to direct their anger against England. Thesolution was to find language inspiring to all classes, specific enoughin its listing of grievances to fill people with anger against the British,vague enough to avoid class conflict, and stirring enough to buildpatriotic feelings.Everything the Declaration of Independence was about - popularcontrol over governments, the right of rebellion and revolution, fury atpolitical tyranny, economic burdens, and military attacks - was wellsuited to unite large numbers of colonists and persuade even thosewho had grievances against one another to turn against England.Some Americans were clearly omitted from those united by theDeclaration of Independence: Indians, black slaves, and women.
An employee left her job to move across the country and start her own business. After her departure, the employee and her former employer entered into a contract for the employee to provide consulting services to the employer for a one-year period. One month later, the employer told the employee that it intended to withhold payment under the contract because it was not satisfied with the services provided. The employee filed a complaint in federal court, alleging that the employer had breached the consulting contract, for which the employee sought $60,000 in damages. The complaint further alleged that the employee had been the victim of gender discrimination during the course of her employment, in violation of federal law. One week after being served with the complaint, the employer filed an answer.May the court properly adjudicate the employee's state law claims?Answers:A. No, because a plaintiff may not join federal and state law claims in the same action.B. No, because a court must have subject-matter jurisdiction over all joined claims.C. Yes, because a state claim may be joined if the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are satisfied.D. Yes, because a plaintiff may join as many claims as she has against the opposing party.