Hello. You forgot to add the text to which this question refers. The text is:
Pennsylvania created the most radical state constitution of the period. Following the idea of popular rule to its logical conclusion, Pennsylvania created a state government with several distinctive features. First, the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776 abolished property requirements for voting as well as for holding office. If you were an adult man who paid taxes, then you were allowed to vote or even to run for office. This was a dramatic expansion of who was considered a political person, but other aspects of the new state government were even more radical. Pennsylvania also became a "unicameral" government where the legislature only had one body. Furthermore, the office of the governor was entirely eliminated. Radicals in Pennsylvania observed that the governor was really just like a small-scale king and that an upper legislative body (like the House of Lords in Parliament) was supposed to represent wealthy men and aristocrats. Rather than continue those forms of government, the Pennsylvania constitution decided that "the people" could rule most effectively through a single body with complete legislative power.
Answer:
The Pennsylvania Constitution established a unicameral legislative body.
The Pennsylvania Constitution abolished property requirements for voting and holding elected office.
Explanation:
The text above shows how Pennsylvania created a constitution a totally different and radical constitution compared to other American states. This is because Pennsylvania, through its constitution, modified its entire political body, creating a more popular structure and accessible to all citizens. The main changes occurred in terms of who could vote and stand and how the state's legislative body would be established. In summary, these changes are:
- The Pennsylvania Constitution established a unicameral legislative body.
- The Pennsylvania Constitution abolished property requirements for voting and holding elected office.
The similarity in both invasions of Russia is.
They both Failed.
Answer:
An alliance does not mean that partners have merged, operate in lockstep, or even always adhere to one another’s input. In this case, they certainly have not, do not, and they sometimes ignore one another’s counsel. Allies can have areas of major divergence. And the Taliban and al-Qaeda certainly do. Since the inception of their relationship, the two groups have differed on their strategic objectives, priorities, and tactics. The Taliban continues to be staunchly focused on Afghanistan and has never embraced al-Qaeda’s global jihadist ambitions. For its part, al-Qaeda has consistently pursued its agenda with a disregard for how doing so has affected the Taliban.
Explanation:
hope we can be friends
can i please get brainliest
