2.how did the bill of rights to satisfy he arguments of some critics of the u. s. constitution? a-it guaranteed the powers of the federal government b-it guaranteed certain freedoms and rights to the people c-it limited the authority of state governments d-it restricted the territories in which slavery was legal 3. why are conflicts between the executive and legislative branches of a parliamentary government unlikely to occur? a-parliament as a whole maintains strict oversight over the executive branch b-the executive branch is part of the parliament which is legislative c-there are check and balances among the different branches d-the central governments limited power restricts its ability to act on behalf of the country as a whole 4. what theory was thomas hobbes describing when he wrote about an agreement between the people and government to work in concert with each other and sacrifice some power to make society

2. The correct answer here is the option B.
The main critique of the Constitution in those early days before and just after its ratification was that the federal government would have too much power, and people feared that it would abuse that power as the British government did. Thus the bill of rights guaranteed the rights of the people that the federal government could not infringe. 

3. The correct answer here is the option B, again.
Basically in a parliamentary government there wouldn't be much conflict between the executive branch and the legislative branch as the executive branch is also a part of the parliament which itself is the legislature. The executive branch draws legitimacy from the legislative branch but it also has to answer to it. 

4. Thomas Hobbes is talking there about his theory of a social contract. People would cede some power so that the others would cede theirs and thus create laws that will govern human interaction and a contract between the governed and the those who govern.

What are the options for the question i'll get back to you asap if you could let me know