"be it therefore enacted by the king’s most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords….and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the first day of may one thousand eight hundred and seven, the african slave trade, and all…manner of dealing and trading in the purchase, sale, barter, or transfer of slaves or of persons intended to be sold, transferred, used or dealt with as slaves, practised and carried on, in, at to or from any part of the coast or countries of africa, shall be, and the same is hereby utterly abolished, prohibited, and declared to be " - from "an act for the abolition of the slave trade." based on this passage, what did this act abolish? a) slavery in africa b) profiting from slave labor c) slavery in the british empire d) the taking of slaves from africa

The correct answer is D: this act abolished the taking of slaves from Africa. Let's see why:

A, B and C are wrong because:

It's important to not mistake slavery by slave trade. To abolish slavery would mean to end it immediately as a form of work that was an important profit source in many parts of the British Empire. This would be a more radical act that would happen only with the Slave Abolition Act 1833.

D is correct because:

It was thought by then that by abolishing trade of people bought in Africa all slavery would naturally end, that's why this act forbids it. This proved wrong: slavery survived, not only because not all nations respected this act (Brazil, for example, would forbid slave trade only in 1830), but also because the slave trade became a domestic trade. Brazil had slaves until 1888 based on trades between its regions, selling and buying sons and daughters of African slaves.

the two colonies had the earliest laws mandating religious tolerance.

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