Answer: Commander and Chief.
Explanation:
Answer:
Mark me as brainlist
Explanation:
The original Constitution of 1788 contained very few specific restrictions on the ways in which the power of the national government could be exercised against the people. It guaranteed the right to trial by jury in criminal (but not civil) cases, placed limits on prosecutions and punishments for treason, forbade bills of attainder (laws aimed at particular persons) and ex post facto laws (laws that punished conduct that was legal when it happened), limited any restrictions on habeas corpus to certain designated emergencies, and prohibited the granting of titles of nobility. But the Constitution that emerged from the 1787 Constitutional Convention contained nothing like a comprehensive bill of rights. Most state constitutions of the time had bills of rights, and many citizens—and members of the Constitutional Convention—expected the new national constitution to have one as well. Nonetheless, the state delegations at the Constitutional Convention voted 10-0 against including a bill of rights in the Constitution.
It depends because offense happens when opinions are said
It was not a ‘British’ reaction - there was divided opinion in Britain as to how to respond and even in Parliament there were some who were in sympathy with the growing colonial resistance to British taxes. The Prime Minister was not one of them. The Stamp Act was an attempt to recover some of the great cost that the French and Indian War had incurred. The Intolerable Acts were a response to the resistance that the Stamp Act had met with. The Stamp Acts was a tax intended to revenue. The intolerable Acts were intended to curtail the growing resistance- by the time of the Intolerable Acts legislation was no longer focused on raising revenue but was focused on the resistance that trying to raise revenue had met with