Why was the boston tea party seen as an act of rebellion?

it was a protest that included the illegal dumping of a shipment of goods.

it was a violent clash that led to the death of colonists at the hands of british troops.

it was a series of protests that harmed british trade and led to the repeal of the stamp act.

it was a sizable cancellation of tea orders to boycott the shipment of british tea into the colonies.

A. It was a protest that included the illegal dumping of a shipment of goods.

Explanation:

In 1776, the United States gained its independence by signing a declaration on July 4 that freed the 13 colonies from English rule. England overcame France in the Seven Years' War (1756 - 1763), but faced with the high costs of maintaining the conquered territories, imposed a series of taxes on the American colony. These include the Sugar Law (collection of taxes on sugar that did not come from the English Antilles), Stamp Act (all documents originating in the colony, such as contracts, newspapers and crafts, would receive a British Crown seal) and Tea (the settlers could only buy tea, then monopolized by the East India Company, from English merchants). In the face of all these laws, revolts originated. One of them, against the Tea Law, was the "Boston Tea Party."

After England imposed the new taxes, the settlers reacted. They boycotted the "Townshend Act" (which prevented Americans from negotiating with countries other than England), which further aggravated the situation. In 1773, American settlers, disguised as Indians, mingled with the dock workers in Boston, and threw the entire shipment of Indian Company tea (45 tons) into the sea. This boycott was organized by the pro-independence group entitled "The Children of Freedom." Following the boycott, the British government severely punished Boston's inhabitants by shutting down the city's port and delegating to the military the right to occupy civilian homes.

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