Who ever gets this will get a brainlest

I'd say it's the first one. The reformation was a religious change, which makes the bottom three correct. However, the first one is wrong; if anything, they'd be less willing to challenge authority. This is because the government was playing what I like to call a government-issue version of whack-a-mole with authority challengers. As soon as one person started rebelling, the government would punish them, and another rebel is gone.

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

athenian democracy developed around the fifth century bc in the greek city-state (known as a polis) of athens, comprising the city of athens and the surrounding territory of attica, and is often described as the first known democracy in the world. other greek cities set up democracies, most following the athenian model, but none are as well documented as athens'.

it was a political system of direct democracy, in which participating citizens voted directly on legislation and executive bills. participation was not open to all residents: to vote one had to be an adult, male citizen, i.e., not a foreign resident, a submissive or a woman, and the number of these was "probably no more than 30 percent of the total adult population."[1]

the longest-lasting democratic leader was pericles. after his death, athenian democracy was twice briefly interrupted by oligarchic revolutions towards the end of the peloponnesian war. it was modified somewhat after it was restored under eucleides; the most detailed accounts of the system are of this fourth-century modification rather than the periclean system. democracy was suppressed by the macedonians in 322 bc. the athenian institutions were later revived, but how close they were to a real democracy is debatable. solon (594 bc), cleisthenes (508/7 bc), and ephialtes (462 bc) contributed to the development of athenian democracy. cleisthenes broke up the power of the nobility by organizing citizens into ten groups based on where they lived rather than on their wealth.

hope this !