Answer:
The correct answer to the question: Many constitutional monarchies started out as, would be: Absolute monarchies.
Explanation:
The big difference between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy, is the limitations placed on the power exercised by a monarch, or head ruler, of a country. In ancient times, this became the norm, especially in Europe, where the absolute power of kings was unquestioned and unchecked by anyone. However, even if kingdoms all over the world started out as absolute monarchies, with the King or Queen being the only law in the land, this changed through time, until these rulers became bound by another law; that of a constitution. This is the case of England, and other such nations, where government went from being solely in the hands of a ruler, to the ruler´s power being chained by constitutions. Today, many of the monarchies only have Kings and Queens as symbols, but they play no part in government.
A. "Chloroplast" is the main organelle for photosynthesis.
Hello! I'll gladly go over this question as a native Spanish speaker.
It's very common to see Spanish words that were adapted or transitioned from an English word. Cafeteria would be one of them. Another eample would be tanque = Tank. This is the result of a bad pronunciation or adaptation from the original word which would be the English one.
You can definitely find many examples like that one, and notice how Spanish cultures mix English words with their Spanish and adapt them until they become official words in dictionaries.
Answer:
The desire for a new Constitution was borne out of some of the lapses of the Articles of Confederation which produced a weak central government. In 1787, representatives from 12 states from the existing 13 states in the United States converged to draft the new U.S Constitution. Several deliberations were made to form a better and stronger system of government. However, two alliances were formed at that time as a faction. One was the Federalists and the other was the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists were led by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. They wanted a sizable amount of representation in government among states based on their population.
During the process of ratifying the Constitution, the Federalists argued that the Bill of Rights need not be part of the Constitution. They believed that with the addition of the Bill of Rights, the rights of citizens would be affected negatively and less protected.
The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, wanted the same representation in all states. This alliance was led by Patrick Henry. They argued for the Bill of Rights and was against every move to establish a new Constitution, on the ground that, the constitution will give more powers to the National government and this will be detrimental to the citizens' rights.
A compromise was agreed on and after much debate on the issues of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution was submitted to the Congress of Federation in 1787 and by 1788, it had been ratified by most states.
