How did sulla turn the roman republic into the roman empire?

a: he angered the senate by proposing that rome divide public lands among the returning military and their families.
b: he replaced the elected consuls and the senate with an empire that could be inherited by members of the ruler's family.
c: he angered the senate by convincing men to serve in wars by promising them land and citizenship.
d: he restructured the city's politics and strengthened the senate's power.

D: He restructured the city's politics and strengthened the Senate's power.

Explanation:

In the Constitutional reforms enacted between 82 and 80 BC, Sulla decreed strengthening of the Roman Senate, reducing the power of the plebeian tribunes and democracy in Rome. Along with the fact that he was appointed the dictator, this was the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic and the event that foreshadowed the civil war and the becoming of the Roman empire.

- three-quarters or two-thirds..

- "the constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the house of representatives and the senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures."

< 3

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