What did charles i's fate demonstrate? no english monarch could ignore parliament. parliament was weaker than the monarchy. there was no place for kings and queens in england. kings and queens remained above?

No English monarch could ignore Parliament.

Charles I's relationship with Parliament was always difficult since the beginning of his government (1625). It was full of disputes and disagreements. In 1628, A Petition of Right sent by the Parliament was approved by the king, however, he soon completely ignored the contract and contributed to the rising tensions. The following year, the king ended up dissolving the Parliament and ruled without it for 11 years.

Nevertheless, the king recurred to them again in 1641 since he needed to obtain funds to fight a war against Scotland. When they met again, the tensions rose again and the king refused the Parliament's conditions. No agreement was made.

All of this and the increasing discussions led to two civil wars in England, in which the parliament had allianced with the Scots. The King was defeated in 1646 and put on trial for treason. He was executed on 30 January 1649. Charles I' reign demonstrate the importance of not commanding a reign alone.

I choose the first two items.

The American Constitution is one of the oldest constitutions, dating from 1787. Appealed by Illuminist ideals, our Constitution delimited the State's performance in three independent powers, the Legislative, the Judiciary and the Executive, as mentioned in item (B).

In addition, in the political discussions of our Constitution, there was the group of Federalists, who wanted to maintain centralized power, and the group of Republicans, who wanted to give independence of action to the states.

Interested in seeking a balance between the two tendencies, the American constitutional charter ended up being formed by a restricted series of articles.Thus, the document paved the way for the US states to have autonomy to draft laws according to their specificities, as suggested in item (A).