Based on this clip, do you think all women agreed on how to bring about change and gain the right to vote? A) What does that tell you about the women's rights movement?

This question does not include the clip. However, it is possible to give an approximate answer without it.

Based on historical research and accounts from that period, not all women agreed on how to bring about change and gain the right to vote. Some women believed that this was necessary for women to achieve, while others did not give it a lot of importance. Moreover, some women believed this needed to be achieved through the use of peaceful or legal methods, while others believe that protests, activism or even violence were better strategies.

What this tells us about the women's rights movement is that it was never a completely uniform movement. Within it, there were many different types of women with many different opinions and ideas. Moreover, it also tells us that women within the movement did not always know what the best way to proceed was.

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

during the middle ages bibles and most christian literature was written in latin i think that’s the answer you are looking for