This is not a comprehensive answer, but I think it will suffice as a starting point for further investigation. The American founders were, like Machiavelli, greatly interested in ancient forms of government.
Machiavelli was - so he claimed - the first person to really investigate the ancients for their political wisdom. In his Discourses on Livy he argues at the outset that the most successful governments find a way to blend the three positive forms of government, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, as opposed to relying exclusively on one of these (as each can turn into its opposite - tyranny, oligarchy and anarchy).
This is what we see in the US Constitution. The presidency is the 'monarchical' element; the judicial branch and the Senate (which at first was not elected) is the aristocratic element; the House of Representatives (and now the Senate) is the democratic element. The founders, following Machiavelli's (and others) advice, did not want a 'pure' but a 'mixed' form of government.
Machiavelli also believed in checks and balances and a division of power. This theme is reflected in the 3 branches of government active in the United States. The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches are described in the first three articles of the Constitution.
Practically speaking, Machiavelli's book of The Prince was a short recipe for obtaining and retaining power. The US Constitution was a document that set forth how the new federal government would operate.
im=mhbhczxc vcjvdxb
The Constitution may undergo changes with a Constitutional Amendment or Constitutional Convention. The Supreme Court may not actually make changes to the Constitution, but may interpret the lines of the Constitution differently as time passes.
Yes it is and no its not
Thomas Beckett, or Thomas of London, promised to follow the constitution. He was appointed chancellor, and then changed his ways and no longer followed the constitution.
Revolution: the sudden other throw longest established ideas and organizations Reaction: the effort to oppose new ideas and preserve traditional ways
Machiavelli's "The Prince" reflected humanist and Renaissance ways of thinking by advocating for practical and pragmatic leadership rather than relying on traditional moral principles. It emphasized the importance of political effectiveness, using reason and logic to guide decisions, which were key tenets of humanism. Additionally, the emphasis on individual agency and the ambition to achieve power were reflective of the humanist ideals of self-improvement and achievement in the Renaissance.
He changed the methods or ways of the running of politics and law .
im=mhbhczxc vcjvdxb
12
The states new constitution reflected on Republicans ideal in a few ways. The new constitution was built on the foundation of colonial experience.
you can reflect in thought, or reflect some thing in a Mirror. There's other ways to reflect to.
A constitution should be inflexible; a person should not be able to interpret its contents in a number of different ways, but in one way that is fair for all. Amendments allow a constitution to be updated and corrected to reflect the changes in society, but not so that it can be changed on a flimsy whim.
The ideas of John Locke and other enlightenment thinkers gave them the ability to look at government in different ways.
There various ways that the US Constitution and state constitutions are similar. The two main ways are the fact that they both define governments and allow for amendments.
The French Revolution borrowed enlightenment ideas which had first been successfully put into place in America. Read "the declaration of the rights of man" its littered with stuff that's almost straight out of the American constitution.
check
Five