Which factors led to the end of the Mississippian culture? Check all that apply. Millions of American Indians died from new diseases. Chiefdoms broke apart as groups separated. Some people left their villages after chiefs became more powerful. Some groups moved their villages in order to trade. Most enslaved American Indians were sent to Europe.

1. Millions of American Indians died from new diseases.

2. Some groups moved their villages in order to trade

3. Chiefdoms broke apart as groups separated.

Explanation:

The Mississippian culture was known to have flourished before the European settlers came into the region. This was evident in the report of Hernando De Soto around the 1540s that describes the powerful chiefs ruling over large territories.

However, the Mississippian culture came to an end due to the following reasons:

1. Millions of American Indians died from new diseases which were brought by the European settlers such as smallpox, measles, and flu

2. Some groups moved their villages to trade: this occurred through the natives looking for what to trade in exchange for European goods such as guns and horses.

3. Chiefdoms broke apart as groups separated: consequently, the people separated looking for their immediate group instead of coming together at large.

the us constitution is a living document, meaning that it can be changed over time as the country changes.

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