The colonists think the writs of assistance violated their rights because they wanted it to be secure in their home.
They thought this because the colonies were run by England at first.
Your question is hard to answer because not all members of a political party have to all think the exact same way.
GAAP standards.
no
The Quartering Act of 1765 stated that the colonists would have to house the British troops. The colonists protested this act because they did not want these troops in their homes and they did not trust them.
They felt as though many of their rights were violated, like their home security rights and their jury rights.
Because it allowed customs officers to enter any location to search for smuggled goods
The colonists objected the writs of assistance because it allowed officials to get warrants to break into the work places of merchants. Often merchant's workplaces where their homes, and their homes would be destroyed by the officers. They were searching for smuggled goods like sugar or cotton. The officers didn't need to state what they were searching for or where they where searching, but only that they the merchant was suspicious, and they could get a warrant. Regrettably, we see much the same thing today, with the AWFUL and unconstitutional "warrantless searches" in recent wars: VERY WORRISOME.
their seperate but equal right
to be secure in their home.
that they had to pay taxes on tea
the rights of the people are violated in the whole subcontinent including india,pakistan and Bangladesh. in India, the rights of the minorities are violated, the right of dissent is muzzled and the maddening race for weaponry is going on at the cost of people, the same is happening in Pakistan. if the two countries don't realize the follies commit ed at present there is little hope of seeing progress in near future..........
You might want to check out the Constitution's position on that in the 1830s--I dont think that, according to the constitution, the Native Americans had many rights at that time so perhaps their rights were not violated because they had none at all. If you were talking about the universal rights we have today regarding all beings, then they were DEFINITELY violated--they had no political say, they had no inclusion in legal rights, and they were raped, tortured, moved out of their homes, and killed brutally.
They thought this because the colonies were run by England at first.
1. That all men possessed unalienable rights, and 2. King George III had violated the colonists' rights by passing unfair laws.
The English colonists had the right to life, a right to liberty and a right to property. The colonists had all rights to live as men of the society. They had the right to live as Christians. They had the right to live as subjects of that place.
Your question is hard to answer because not all members of a political party have to all think the exact same way.