In what ways did Western Europe in the Early Middle Ages differ from the Roman Empire? A. Western Europe was less Christian and more pagan than ancient Rome.
B. Western Europe had a better system of roads, enabling easy travel.
C. Western Europe was more urbanized and had higher literacy and trade rates
D. Western Europe was more rural, less literate, and had more limited trade.

D. Western Europe was more rural, less literate, and had more limited trade.

Explanation:

After the fall of the Roman Empire, Western Europe entered a period of economic decline that lasted for almost a thousand years, and that had profound political and social consequences.

The political integration that had been common under the Roman Empire for 4 centuries collapsed, and countless states emerged, many of them lasting a few decades, or even years. This political climate caused less economic integration: trade went down to a bare minimum, cities became depopulated, the regions became more ruralized, economies became more local and precarious, poverty rose, and literacy fell as well.

As centuries passed, Western Europe recovered slowly, but it was only until the Late Middle Ages that development levels were similar to those enjoyed during the height of the Roman Empire.

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