Answer:
Strict or Loose Interpretation
Explanation:
In the town of Concord<span>. He had also heard that John Hancock and Samuel Adams, two leaders of the Sons of Liberty, </span>were<span> in Lexington. General Gage </span>sent<span> 700 </span>British soldiers<span> to find the weapons and arrest the two Patriot leaders.</span>
Numerous originalists would reply "yes," on the grounds that legal audit isn't listed as an energy of the Judicial Branch in the Constitution.
Then again, the legal audit was at that point a setup training when the Constitution was composed, and the Framers, a significant number of whom were attorneys with information of court method, didn't expressly disallow it. Article III makes no say of how the Judicial Branch should practice statute. The absence of direction has a tendency to infer the Framers deliberately permitted adaptability and a level of independence in deciding the courts' operation. In the event that they had no aim for the Judicial Branch to go about as a mind the energy of the other two branches, they could have set more unequivocal rules for the legal to take after.
B) Control of the abuse of power
This would also be considered “checks and balances.” The president “checks” Congress by vetoing bills if he feels the need to do so.
Yes, I agree with the other person - absolutism is the political system in which a ruler holds total power.
It means that the ruler can pretty much do whatever he or she wishes to do, because they are not constrained by laws or any other political body. This type of government is very similar to dictatorship and totalitarianism.
