He outlined his goals of a thrifty government and the support of states to better protect their freedoms than a large federal body.
Answer:
It reflects the fear of many people as regards a centralized federal power.
Explanation:
The passage refers to the period that immediately followed American independence from Britain. The articles of this Constitution were ambiguous on purpose because, in that way, aristocrats in charge of the power could exercise rights and modify the Constitution at their convenience. Americans felt that a federal government that concentrated most of the authority over the states would establish a tyranny similar to the one King George III had.
Answer:Habituation
Explanation: Habituation is defined as mechanism in which the person tends to reduce the response towards the stimulus due to prolonged interaction or presentation with it. It is kind of learning process that gets settles due to the repeated exposure.
The case mentioned in the question also wants to refer "nose-blindness" towards the odor as habituation because people are repeatedly exposed to the same odor that they don't notice the fragrance of their air fresheners.
Since not all the women have been asked (it's impossible, it would take too much time and be too expensive), we can only have an estimate - it's around 50%, or half the women.
The various statistics, depending on the county and a survey are between 40% and 60% - so that is the correct answer.
But as I said, depending on the sample and the source, that number can slightly vary.
Answer:
1. The author uses the words "undefined", "unbounded" and "immense" to describe the powers of the constitution.
2. Upset: it makes the Congress even more powerful than it’s previous long list of expressed powers
3. A Bill of Rights is necessary to protect the rights of citizens. The proposed Constitution does not do enough.
4. Yes he does, and it matters because if you don’t trust the people in power you wouldn’t have a real nation.
5.He seems more like an Anti-Federalist.
Part Two
1. Unnecessary and dangerous
2. From the Federalist No.84
3. No because he believes that its unnecessary and not needed in the constitution.
4. That the bill of rights is pointless and not realistic for the American people.
5 He is defiantly Anti-Federalist; He goes against everything Federalism is for.
