Answer:
The third estate
Explanation:
The third estate contributed the most money toward the government due to the high taxation
let me know if you need any other help:)
I think it is d if I'm wrong I'm sorry
You didn't provide us with choices, so I'll simply provide some historical explanation. The main issue was whether the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights added.
The Articles of Confederation, in place prior to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, had granted stronger authority to the states. Patrick Henry and other Anti-Federalists were concerned about too much power winding up in the hands of the federal government and its executive branch, thus allowing a small number of national elites to control the affairs of the USA. They feared this also would diminish the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.
Federalists believed the Constitution itself clearly limited government power and protected the rights of the people. Nevertheless, the addition of a Bill of Rights, laid out in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, provided reassurance to Anti-Federalists in the fight over ratification. The compromise which led to agreement in regard to ratification of the Constitution was called the Massachusetts Compromise, because of major opposition to ratification that had existed in Massachusetts. John Hancock and Samuel Adams (both of them anti-Federalists) were the ones who helped negotiate the compromise. The anti-Federalists agreed that they would support ratification of the Constitution, with the understanding that recommendations for amendments would follow if the Constitution was ratified. The Federalists promised to support the proposed amendments, which would outline a Bill of Rights to guarantee protection of specific rights the anti-Federalists wanted specifically asserted in the Constitution.
The US Constitution was ratified in 1788. The Bill of Rights was created in 1789 and ratified in 1791.
Hello! I believe the answer is the last one. Supported democratic South Korea against communist backed North Korea. Hope this helps!
<span>The current thinking is around 200,000 years ago, but I would argue against this by saying that humans had not yet developed the same mental capacity that we have today, as some cognitive ability would have been needed in making art, which of course seems to have appeared around 70,000 years ago in its geometric form, where as the figurative animal paintings and carvings came to be around 40-35 thousand years ago. So, humans were physically definitely modern around 200ka, but mentally, this is unlikely. It is of course possible to argue that behavioural changes need not to be dictated by physiological or cognitive changes. Art could just be an invention</span>
