What are two ways the bill of rights opposed the idea of the divine right of kings

The Bill of Rights, is a document in which there is a formal declaration of the rights enjoyed by citizens of any country,  state or nation, independent from what is given by a certain authority, or power. This means, that control, and government, as well as the rights of the people, no longer depend on a ruler, or on an authority, but on the power of the people themselves. Given that through these Bill of Rights, basically monarchs lost their right to rule over others as if that right were given to them by a superior being, such as God, and power was tied to the authority and power of the people themselves, then, the two ways in which the Bill of Rights opposed the idea of the divine right of kings, were:

1. The Bill of Rights established that power, and the right to govern, did not come from a superior being, but was given to the ruler by the people. Thus, this document tied rulers and their responsibilities, to their people, and not to an outside authority. Now, rulers had to respond, and depend, on the will of the people.

2. The Bill of Rights established that citizens of a nation had individual liberties and rights that were unalienable and independent from the specific will of a ruler, or a state. Also, states, and rulers, could not affect, change, or alter, these rights, as they were basically inherent to their status as citizens and as human beings.

b.europe i believe because north america has 3 countries in a way and with all the stuff with illegal immagrants from mexico or whatever so i would say europe.