The first one is constitutional because, the constitution and other people is involved
The answer is D. hope this helps!
Answer for the second
'Released from foreign war, we would probably be plunged into all the misery of anarchy and intestine war. Can we suppose that the people of the south, would submit to having the seat of Empire at Philadelphia, or New England; or that the people oppressed by a change of government, contrasting their misery with their former happy state, would not invite Britain to reassume the sovereignty.” — James Chalmers, Plain Truth, 1776
If the one above is the argument, you might consider that the colonists did obtain independence from England. That by itself was something that Chalmers always thought to be impossible without serious repercussions. He used to say that in the case of achieving freedom, America would just end up being attacked and maybe even colonized by some other country. What happened, thought, was that after the revolution, other countries gained respect for America as an opponent and the country was eventually left to be.
The Yellowstone Act of 1872 designated the region as a public “pleasuring-ground,” which would be preserved “from injury or spoilation, of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonders within.” For a nation bent on settling and exploiting the West, the creation of Yellowstone was surprising.
