1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Eddi Din [679]
3 years ago
13

Analyzing Why do you think having three separate branches of government was a persuasive argument for ratifying the Constitution

?
History
1 answer:
OleMash [197]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

The fact of having three separate branches of government was a persuasive argument for the ratification of the Constitution because, through the differentiation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers, the creation of tyrannical or totalitarian governments became very difficult. Thus, American citizens were guaranteed the permanent validity of their individual liberties and civil rights, which could not be curtailed or limited by dictatorial rulers, as the republican system itself establishes a system of checks and balances that allows members of the a specific branch to control the rest.

You might be interested in
All of the following are accomplishments of Emperor Justiniani Except
dimaraw [331]
Just need points..sorry;(
7 0
3 years ago
historians of the past wrote mostly about a. Great battles b. well-known individuals in great heroes c. religious ceremonies and
Korvikt [17]
Is there an all of the above? I guess if I had to answer, i would say A. Grest battles
7 0
3 years ago
Which of the following nations does not possess nuclear weapons?
netineya [11]

Answer:

france

Explanation:

i hope it helps

8 0
3 years ago
Which general led led the allied operation torch in North Africa?
Ymorist [56]
Kernel sanders is the answer np
6 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did British colonists oppose the Wool Act of 1699 and the Iron Act of 1750? They protected the home country’s economy at the
ivanzaharov [21]

Answer:

<u><em>They protected the home country’s economy at the colonists’ expense</em></u>.

Explanation:

Interestingly this colonist where affected after the Wool Act because it resulted in higher value of British clothes as a result of export ban of foreign wool.

The Iron Act which was meant to increase local iron production was opposed because they were resulting in losses for the growing iron and steel companies.

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • During the 1980s, which industry offered immigrants high wages and good benefits?
    6·1 answer
  • How were armies supply lines and logisitics like hundreds of years ago?
    9·1 answer
  • Use each of the two words below in a sentence that shows their meaning in this lesson. a. depression b. manumission
    10·2 answers
  • Why did so many settlers move to California after 1848?
    12·2 answers
  • What was one unintended consequence of virginia's laws requiring segregated schools
    13·1 answer
  • What was the purpose of the Neutrality Acts Congress passed between 1935 and 1937?
    5·1 answer
  • In contrast to the government of ancient Greece, decisions about political issues in the U.S. are made according to what? (1 poi
    12·2 answers
  • Help! 50 points!
    10·1 answer
  • Muslim physicians are responsible for what three medical achievements?
    10·1 answer
  • In what two ways did the bush administration convince americans that going to war in iraq was appropriate?
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!