King james and his son charles believed in the divine right of kings. which means they thought they got their power and right to rule from:

a. votes
b. god
c. family
d. war

Correct  

Explanation:

The word "divine" refers to God (the Deity).  Divine right of kings' theory asserted that kings could not be challenged by the people, because kings were appointed by God to rule over people.  King James I  (1566-1625) and King Charles I (1600-1649) and other monarchs of their era used this argument to bolster their control of government.

In the 17th century, the divine right theory was challenged by philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, who argued the idea of a "social contract."  According to this view, a government's power to govern comes from the consent of the people themselves -- those who are to be governed.  This was a change from the previous ideas of "divine right monarchy" -- that a king ruled because God appointed him to be the ruler.  

John Locke repudiated the views of divine right monarchy in his First Treatise on Civil Government (1690).  Locke took aim at the arguments of a particular divine right monarchy theorist, Robert Filmer, who traced authority to rule back to Adam, the first man created by God.  Locke gave logical rebuttal to show that if that if that were so, then there should only be one true heir in the world today that would rule by divine right as the one king over the whole world.  (Locke also presented other reasoned arguments against divine right theory, but that's one example of how his thinking proceeded.)

In his Second Treatise on Civil Government (1690), Locke argued for the rights of the people to create their own governments according to their own desires and for the sake of protecting their own life, liberty, and property.   Locke maintained that the people always remain in charge, and asserted that the people have the power to change their government and remove government leaders if the government is not properly serving the needs and well-being of the people.  

separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another.   the intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.  

the traditional characterizations of the powers of the branches of american government are:

* the legislative branch is responsible for enacting the laws of the state and appropriating the money necessary to operate the government.

* the executive branch is responsible for implementing and administering the public policy enacted and funded by the legislative branch.

* the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their interpretations to controversies brought before it.

forty state constitutions specify that government be divided into three branches:   legislative, executive and judicial.   california illustrates this approach; "the powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial.   persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this constitution."

while separation of powers is key to the workings of american government, no democratic system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers. governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap; they are too complex and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized. as a result, there is an inherent measure of competition and conflict

minnesota:   minnesota house research,   separation of powers: when statutes and court rules conflict, 2005