How did the ruler establish legitimacy in the aztecas

Aztec is the name popularly used today to label the people who dominated central Mexico around 1500 CE. Actually, "the Aztecs" never used the term to describe themselves; rather, they were Nahuatl-speaking peoples divided into about twenty different ethnic groups. The most famous of these groups, and the preeminent one when the Spaniards arrived in Mexico, were the Mexica.

The Mexica arrived in the basin of Mexico (where Mexico City stands today) probably some time during the thirteenth century CE. According to their own legends, they arrived along the western shores of Lake Texcoco as an impoverished, uncouth group into a region that was already fairly fully occupied by a series of kingdoms. Despised as barbarians by the existing inhabitants, their only skill was an aptitude for warfare under the strong influence of their patron god of war, Huitzilopochtli.

Gradually, the Mexica grew stronger. They settled their capital, Tenochtitlan, sometime around 1325, and toward the end of the fourteenth century began to make a concerted drive to achieve a position of strength in the region. In 1428, they and several allies overthrew the Tepanecs of Azcapotzalco, the most powerful kingdom in the basin of Mexico at the time. In one sudden move, the Mexica had become the most-powerful group in ancient Mexico

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