John Wycliffe - He contradicted all forms of riches among clergy. He had disdain for ministers, and he believed that all devout specialist sprang from the Book of scriptures.
Jan Hus - He was irritated by its impedances with common politics.
Desiderius Erasmus - He made a complaint of the deal of Liberalities.
Martin Luther - That the pope was the main mediatopr of God’s will rather than the book of scriptures, and that he nailed to the entryway of the Wittenberg church; the act that begun the Reformation.
Please correct any mistakes in my answer!! I'd be happy to fix it!! :)
In order to paraphrase a text you should understand each paragraph's main ideas and then think of other citations and examples of your own to complete the logic of it.
1 - The Beard interpretation has two main problems: first, there isn’t in the Constitution any confession or strong sign of the influence from those who believed the fundamental private rights of property being fundamentally anterior to government and morally unreachable for the popular majorities; second, it is impossible to deny the Constitution as a document in federalism.
2 - These problems should be addressed. The second is simple for it is consensual amongst Revolutionary era historians that the big question of that moment was: how to articulate diverse parts of an empire towards common purposes? And how to realize that articulation without taking one side more than another, without transforming demands for liberty and autonomy into central government undermining. It can be argued that’s the same debate over Federal aid to education.
3 - The Declaratory Act was a declaration of the British failure in solving this same problem, about which Edmund Burke sharply observed the impossibility of arguing anyone into slavery. When it was time for Americans to deal with this dilemma the Articles of Confederation were adequate when discussing the distribution of powers but lacking in sanctions. This deficiency was the cause of the Philadelphia Convention.
4 - Although Beard’s interpretation is convincing when arguing that those who wrote the Constitution belonged to the propertied classes, he is not as convincing about this being reflected on the Constitution itself. If the framers were trying to protect their property they didn’t succeed. Our analysis of the Economic Interpretation of the Constitution shows that the auteur’s reading of that historical moment fails to legitimate itself when confronted with the Constitution’s text. What each of the framers did after the Constitution and how it was directly linked to his class isn’t enough proof of the auteur’s argument if it isn’t shown also through the Constitution.
<span>It made the Russian peasants even less satisfied with the Tsar, who they now felt was causing them to starve, freeze, and hear disappointing news about the invariable incompetence of their army. For some reason, a few decades later, they celebrated the Red Army in WWII, which consisted mostly of dead people.</span>
New overseas trade could make a European country richer because they have new resources that other places around them don't have. Therefore they can sell the new resources to others at a higher price
