How did geography influence the early economic development of new york, boston, and charleston? a) long coastlines offered abundant natural resources. b) proximity to flooding rivers limited development. c) natural harbors provided access to markets. d) extreme climates limited productive activity.

The right answer is C) Natural harbors provided access to markets.

The geography influenced the economic development of New York, Boston, and Charleston, because they were all ports and this helped with trading. Mos t of these coasts were useful to be communicated with the world.

There were many ships coming in and coming out and also due to this, many communities started settling there and towns started booming due to the growing amount of people.

For example, Boston has played a lessening role in national life since the early 20th century, it has remained the focal point of what may be the most diversified and dynamic combination of educational, cultural, medical, and scientific activities in the United States.

And the most important case is in New York. For example,  its International shipping has always been a major part of the city's economy because of New York's natural harbor.

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