What role did john adams play after the boston massacre and why ?

pacal the great: the throne was passed on to pacal through a female; as a result, he believed that he must legitimize his claim to the throne to add stability to his reign.

as a result, the daughter of ac kan's brother ruled until her son, pacal, reached an age old enough to assume the throne.

pacal the great became the king of the mayan city of palenque in a different way than most mayan kings.

pacal pointed out that ac kan had succeeded his mother as ruler, thereby establishing a precedent for the rule to pass through a female.  

he tried to justify that the way he gained the throne by connecting his mother with the divine mother and the mythological events that happened during the creation of the world.  

typically, the son of a male mayan ruler inherited the throne, but in 612 ce, king ac kan died and did not leave behind a male heir.

montezuma 1: even so, these wars of conquest failed to provide enough human sacrifices and because of this, he formed a triple alliance with cities in the valley of puebla-tlascala.  

in addition, montezuma realized that his government failed to the aztecs during the famine.

in order to appease him, montezuma increased the number of human sacrifices.

the aztec performed human sacrifices to their god huitzilopotchli because they believed he desired human blood.  

around 1440 ce, montezuma i became the fifth emperor of the aztecs and went on to rule for 28 years.  

soon after he assumed the throne, the aztecs were hit with a series of disasters, namely a plague of locusts, a flood, and a harsh frost  

huayna capac: huayna capac also fought to gain territories north of his empire in what is now ecuador.  

huayna capac significantly extended the inca empire to the south, into what is now argentina and chile.  

in 1493 ce, huayna capac became the eleventh ruler of the inca empire.  

huayna, therefore, wanted to gain his own lands and launched campaigns against tribes to the east and north of the empire.  

the inca empire reached its peak under the rule of huayna capac.

during this time the empire covered a vast territory including parts of present day colombia, peru, argentina, chile, bolivia, and ecuador.

during his reign, huayna heard about bearded men with pale skin that resembled the incan1 god viracocha and took this news as a bad omen.

huayna took this as another bad omen that predicted the destruction of the empire.

separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another.   the intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.  

the traditional characterizations of the powers of the branches of american government are:

* the legislative branch is responsible for enacting the laws of the state and appropriating the money necessary to operate the government.

* the executive branch is responsible for implementing and administering the public policy enacted and funded by the legislative branch.

* the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their interpretations to controversies brought before it.

forty state constitutions specify that government be divided into three branches:   legislative, executive and judicial.   california illustrates this approach; "the powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial.   persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this constitution."

while separation of powers is key to the workings of american government, no democratic system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers. governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap; they are too complex and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized. as a result, there is an inherent measure of competition and conflict

minnesota:   minnesota house research,   separation of powers: when statutes and court rules conflict, 2005