It disturbs the ecosystem.
Answer:
Marian wanted to be a singer
Explanation:
the article states that " Marian knew, even as a child, she wanted to be a singer.
Example of non popular sovereignty is : annexing a state in the south and assuming that it's gonna be a slave stateExample of popular sovereignty : The ability to vote
One experience that both wealthy and poor women shared during the Industrial Revolution would be "<span>D. Economic and social customs limited opportunities for all women to live independently," since it was considered the job of the man or husband to work. </span>
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.
