Answer:
Um....hm...lemme see....let's say D. It seems to be the most reasonable.
Explanation:
Answer: similarly to Lafayette or Mirabeau, Louis XVI believed in moderate way of doing this revolution. Neither Lafayette nor Mirabeau were republicans. Louis XVI was not republican. In contrast to Mirabeau or Lafayette Louis XVI was forced to call for General States (1789) because of problems with state budget (minister of finances Jacques Necker made him to make his made about it, there was no other way). Louis XVI was no republican
Explanation: Louis XVI has no free will already in 1789. He was also under the influence of much more radical right: 1) his wife Marie Antoinette (from Austrian dynasty of Habsburg), 2) his brothers : Louis de Provence, Charles d´Artois, 3) emigration (aristocracy that already during 1789, 1790 escaped to Rhineland, especially to Koblenz). When he tried to escape, he was caught with all his family in Varennes, and then executed (January 1793).
In general, you can look at the Supreme court checking congress (by overturning unconstitutional laws), congress checks the president (through investigation committees, and eventually potential impeachment) and the president checks the Supreme court (by appointing justices). There are some smaller checks that run counter to this order (like the President can veto congressional bills), but they're much more minor powers. Most of the time, the "checking" of presidential power by the supreme court happens by the court striking down laws passed through congress that the president has thrown a considerable amount of political weight behind (think many of FDR's new deal programs, some of which were struck down by the court. Obamacare also narrowly had some of it's components struck down by the court). The Supreme court can strike down executive orders that are unconstitutional. President Trump's muslim ban, for instance, had some of it's elements stricken down by the court in just the last month.
<span />
