You didn't provide us with choices, so I'll simply provide some historical explanation. The main issue was whether the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights added.
The Articles of Confederation, in place prior to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, had granted stronger authority to the states. Patrick Henry and other Anti-Federalists were concerned about too much power winding up in the hands of the federal government and its executive branch, thus allowing a small number of national elites to control the affairs of the USA. They feared this also would diminish the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.
Federalists believed the Constitution itself clearly limited government power and protected the rights of the people. Nevertheless, the addition of a Bill of Rights, laid out in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, provided reassurance to Anti-Federalists in the fight over ratification. The compromise which led to agreement in regard to ratification of the Constitution was called the Massachusetts Compromise, because of major opposition to ratification that had existed in Massachusetts. John Hancock and Samuel Adams (both of them anti-Federalists) were the ones who helped negotiate the compromise. The anti-Federalists agreed that they would support ratification of the Constitution, with the understanding that recommendations for amendments would follow if the Constitution was ratified. The Federalists promised to support the proposed amendments, which would outline a Bill of Rights to guarantee protection of specific rights the anti-Federalists wanted specifically asserted in the Constitution.
The US Constitution was ratified in 1788. The Bill of Rights was created in 1789 and ratified in 1791.
Answer:
The Federal Government is composed of three distinct branches: legislative , executive , and judicial ,
Explanation:
Government powers not provided to the national government in the us constitution but are rather given to the states by the 10th amendment are called <em>reserved powers</em>. :)
Answer:
He was relevant in defending indigenous peoples in Latin America.
The defense assumes that they are free and in their freedom enjoy the natural right.
Explanation:
In the middle of the year 1502-1510 - Friar Bartolomeu de Las Casas leaves for America where he lands with twelve other friars. In this period, Spain is at the beginning of an empire of magnificence, as discussed above, the Arabs are being expelled by the Catholic kings.
Arriving in the land of the natives, the friar Las Casas is enchanted by the kind reception of the Indigenous, but little by little, Bartolomeu realizes the dark side of the Spaniards subsidized only by the greed of gold and silver or other means that could generate precious goods. In the midst of the shadows of greed, however, is a young man full of vitality and with a right intention to evangelize the natives.
The defense assumes that they are free and in their freedom enjoy natural law.
From his point of view, Las Casas would see exceptional indigenous docility as a way of showing human possibilities and qualities, moving from the wild to the civilized way, so evangelizing in the eyes of the religious would not be a process of domination but rather a means of domination. for liberation. In other words, the interplay between two cultures or between two peoples would bring the sum of vast and ennobling experiences to both sides. Therefore, the exchange of experiences would only be possible if there was a mutual adherence of respect, dialogue and otherness that would converge on justice.
While there were many other factors, threats and violence definitely were key aspects to Hitler's rise to power. His use of terror tactics made people obedient through fear. After acting upon his threats, they knew if they didn't follow him, there was a good chance they would die. He used a sort of manipulation that while brutal, tends to be effective, as portrayed through many events and leaders in history, such as the French Revolution, Mao Zedong (China), Stalin (Russia), and Leopold II (Congo).
