Why did the Glorious Revolution happen and what was created? Question options: It was to stop King James from oppressing English Protestant. The Magna Carta was made and outlined the rights of the people under the law. It was to make everyone in England happy. Rights included right to government, free elections, and free speech

The Glorious Revolution happen to stop King James from oppressing English Protestants and to create the Bill of Rights.

So, the answer is:

Explanation:

Upon assuming the throne, William II signed the Bill of Rights of 1689, Bill of Rights, elaborated by the Parliament, considered one of the most important English constitutional documents.

One of the main objectives of the declaration is to limit the monarch's power in England and to give more power to Parliament, representing his sovereignty over the king. A Parliamentary monarchy was instituted and English absolutism came to an end.

In addition, the declaration guaranteed individual freedom, including freedom of the press and the right to private property, and defined the duties of English citizens, who were no longer subjects. It is important to note that, although the document limited the king's powers according to popular will, the people, in this case, were represented by Parliament.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is

hacida

explanation: