The prime minister<span> is the head of the </span>Canadian <span>government and ruler of </span>Canada<span>. A person becomes </span>prime minister<span> by being leader of the political party that wins the most House of Commons seats in a </span>Canadian<span> federal </span>election<span>.
This is how i found it </span>www.thecanadaguide.com/the-prime-<span>minister
</span>
The reason why people, specifically Puritans, left England to go to America in the 1600s was because of religious persecution of their belief, their belief being the simplified version of the religion hosted by the Reformation of the Church of England under Elizabeth.
No im fine , need more points
Madison’s outlook on the intrinsic power potentials of the three branches of government is that no branch should be more controlling than the next. Madison supposed in balancing the division of powers between the three branches, where their powers were one and the same. Madison stated that a tough and powerful government is wanted, but an inadequate government is also significant where no branch is prevailing. Due to Madison and his thought of checks and balances within the three branches of government, our government is more equipped than it was before. His plan involved getting rid of circumstances where a majority is united by a common interest, where the human rights of the minority are timid.
Answer:
What follows is a bill of indictment. Several of these items end up in the Bill of Rights. Others are addressed by the form of the government established—first by the Articles of Confederation, and ultimately by the Constitution.
The assumption of natural rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence can be summed up by the following proposition: “First comes rights, then comes government.” According to this view: (1) the rights of individuals do not originate with any government, but preexist its formation; (2) the protection of these rights is the first duty of government; and (3) even after government is formed, these rights provide a standard by which its performance is measured and, in extreme cases, its systemic failure to protect rights—or its systematic violation of rights—can justify its alteration or abolition; (4) at least some of these rights are so fundamental that they are “inalienable,” meaning they are so intimately connected to one’s nature as a human being that they cannot be transferred to another even if one consents to do so. This is powerful stuff.
At the Founding, these ideas were considered so true as to be self-evident. However, today the idea of natural rights is obscure and controversial. Oftentimes, when the idea comes up, it is deemed to be archaic. Moreover, the discussion by many of natural rights, as reflected in the Declaration’s claim that such rights “are endowed by their Creator,” leads many to characterize natural rights as religiously based rather than secular. As I explain in The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, I believe his is a mistake.
