•the second claim is that the constitution does not place protecting property rights as the centerpiece of the government.

• if property, which was the economic interest of the founders, was paramount in their eyes, why is the constitution so silent on the issue? this clearly shows that the intent of the constitution was not economic.

plz paraphrase this into ur own words u

In order to rewrite a text with your own words -- paraphrase it -- a bigger part of it works better. You need to resume main ideas and "translate" them to your thinking.

- On the other hand, secondly: protection of property rights is not the focus of the government stablished by the Constitution.

- The absence of property on the Constitution illustrates the impossibility to affirm that economic interest of the founders was the main driving force for their actions.

what are the options?

although the crusades failed to capture jerusalem, they had several major impacts on western europe. they increased the authority of the king: sometimes nobles died in battle without leaving an heir in which case the king got their land. kings passed taxes to pay for the crusades.