# data[].attributes.body
The Constitution was built with the right intention to protect every citizen against the limitations of freedom (hence the careful creation of each Article and Amendment 1-10). Yet, it's ultimately allowed the Government to strip certain groups of their rights (aka minorities) and has lead so many protests now to create equality that should already be present.

# data[].attributes.body
The constitution has protected against tyranny with Checks and Balances, separation of powers and etc but sometimes people violate these principles and the constitution can do a better job at fixing these things.

# data[].attributes.headline
Our government has tried to prevent tyranny by checks and balances, separate powers, delegating powers to the states, voting rights etc.

# data[].attributes.subject
Our government has tried to prevent tyranny by checks and balances, separate powers, delegating powers to the states, voting rights etc.

# data[].attributes.body
The constitution helps prevent tyranny over those who are living within the nation because it prevents anyone from having too much power over decisions made within the Government that affect the whole nation. The Constitution allows those who feel the need to say something about the way things are to be able to and have a voice. This the limits the power of the National and State Gov't.

# data[].attributes.body
The constitution itself has protected peoples rights. For example the First amendment and The BIll of rights. But unfortunately the people will do what they please regardless of the law or constitution.

# data[].attributes.body
The government has not protected the people because certain people hold a higher power in society than others which cause them to have certain advantages over others. Also, police brutality has

# data[].attributes.body
All three branches of the constitution has helped guard against tyranny, through the separation of powers. All three branches lean on each other and help keep each other in check through "checks and balances". Article 1, section 5 ruminates that "Each house shall judge the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own member".

# data[].attributes.body
the government has protected against tyranny because there are freedoms in place that protect citizens rights and also have came up with principles that allow the power within the different types of government to be separated.

# data[].attributes.body
The constitution has protected against the limitation of freedom s by including safe guards such as the bill of rights and the amendments

# data[].attributes.body
The constitution has protected against the limitation of freedoms with the principles that have been embedded into the constitution such as "Checks and balances" and "limited government". However, there is room for improvement when it comes to some things.

# data[].attributes.body
The Constitution has protected against the limitations of freedoms because it states rules protecting individuals rights and specifically keeping power from falling into one persons hands. The constitution

# data[].attributes.body
Our government has tried to prevent tyranny by checks and balances, separate powers, delegating powers to the states, voting rights etc. but in some cases today we see people above the law. For example if a police officer and a black man committed the same crime, the police officer will most likely get probation while the black man gets 20 years.

# data[].attributes.body
The constitution in a whole does protect against tyranny. But the people who have to enforce these rights and protect citizens do not necessarily follow those rules. There still aspects in the government that need to improve.

# data[].attributes.body
The constitution has protected against tyranny as it has implemented federalism and checks and balances that allow power to be in the hands of many. This allows many voices to be heard, and for no one to have too much power that would result in a monarchy - Janequa

# data[].attributes.body
The government has not protected against the limitation of freedoms because even though separation of powers in which is visible in Article 1 Section 8 shows the division of powers to prevent tyranny, and the supremacy clause to state no one is above a law individuals still somehow manage to belittle and restrict particular individuals of their rights even though legally, and constitutionally all are treated equally due to society and lack of concern individuals have managed to strip others of their rights.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like as a whole the government has tried to protect tyranny however certain people and beliefs go against the protection of the government.

# data[].attributes.body
The constitution has protected against limitation of freedoms by using one of the 7 principles to ensure that no branch gets more power than the over. It is impossible for one branch to over power and other with checks and balances. Article 2 section 2 states "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators.." This quote explains how in order for the president to create a treaty with another country they would need 2/3 votes from the senate.

# data[].attributes.body
The Constitution has protected against tyranny. There is room for improvement, but it has done it's initial job. No one branch of government has more power than another (in theory/this is arguable). They all have to get checked by another because each has it's own set of powers. Same goes for state, local and national governments; they each have powers that are reserved to themselves while also having powers they must agree on. The people get to vote and attend meetings like town halls. They also have the right to discuss how displeased or pleased with the current form of government and rules. Which is something that would be against the law if the Constitution did not protect us from tyranny.

# data[].attributes.body
The Government has protected against tyranny and it can be seen through Checks and Balances, because they divide the powers amongst the the three branches of government which does not guarantee that anyone is above the law.

# data[].attributes.body
the constitution itself does protect against tyranny however the people who are suppose to enforce it don't follow through. The constitution has written that no one is above the law which is supposed to be followed but for example some police officers feel that they are above the law and act on those beliefs which cause chaos.

# data[].attributes.body
The Constitution has protected against tyranny because there is no abuse in the powers between the three branches. There are checks and balances that help avoid anyone be above the law.

# data[].attributes.body
The Constitution has protected against tyranny because it sets up a system where power is divided among many (separation of powers), but there are still checks and balances where each group would not have more power than others. In the past it had limited the rights of others (an example would be African- American slaves couldn't vote). However, it has been periodically altered so that certain groups are ensured their rights.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the Constitution has protected against tyranny because we have separation of powers and checks and balances. Separation of powers ensures that every branch of government has their own responsibilities. No one has too much power. Checks and Balances ensure that each branch of government does not abuse their power.

# data[].attributes.body
The Constitution has protected against tyranny, however through history it is not the constitution that was the problem the main issue with individuals and groups being stripped of their rights is the people enacting the rules of the constitution. The constitution stated that everyone is entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, those who held positions of power at the time were at fault for not considering African Americans people and allowing slavery for example.

# data[].attributes.body
The Constitution has protected against tyranny because it formulates a government in which powers are separated amongst the three branches of government with separate responsibilities, this shines through checks and balances and the separation of powers. However, there have been certain cases in which specific groups of people have been declined their rights but the constitution is not to blame for this. The individuals enforcing the Constitution during certain periods in time have slightly changed what this means throughout history.

# data[].attributes.body
The Constitution has not protected against tyranny  because the "necessary and proper clause" states that Congress has the power to create and enact laws that they believe are "necessary and proper" to carry out their powers. A prime example is the PATRIOT Act. While there are checks and balances that prevents the gov't from limiting the rights of the people, in cases such as Korematsu V. United States, Supreme Court decided that in times of war, the individual rights of citizens can be taken away.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the Constitution has protected against tyranny. For one no one is above the law so no one can take away your rights for a random reason.