Well in Saudi Arabia the King has the political power to do anything he damn well pleases with no one in the nation able to tell him otherwise. Well... unless what the King wishes goes too strongly against the laws of Islam, then one of his family members will probably usurp him then do as they damn well please instead.

In the UK the Queen has the political power of a house brick. The democratically elected parliament calls the shots and she's nothing more than a national figurehead.

It was basically a set of laws for the pilgrims that made to clear that in order to live you have to work. No one got a free ride so everyone has to pitch in to make things happen. It impacted history by well making some of the first laws in the United States but ofcourse this was before the United States existed.

Holy crap, I sincerely hope you aren't an American. The Constitution was drafted in 1787 as the framework for our VERY young nation. Amazingly, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were level headed and patriotic because the produced that best possible form of government anywhere (this is an opinion. UK has an excellent one. no others come to mind, however). It is still the framework upon which our nation functions.
Impact on history? Well, obviously it ejected the British so England had no more territories here. It also likely played some part in the French Revolution. It is impossible to say how much it affected the French - some argue a lot, others that it had very little signifigance.
An argument can be made that the constitution, in making the US an incredibly orderly nation for being so young, that this stable government allowed westward expansion of it citizens all the way to the Pacific.
It also set up a nation whose 3 branches of government could stop one branch from seizing more power to or itself doing something outrageous, in direct conflict with our constitution from doing something outrageous.

Hello, again, Caco. You've made a mistake here. We were not the first to create a government both strong and controlled/given the boot should they 'misbehave.' The UK was doing it before us - and still do today. There were other countries but I'm drawing a blank. I want to say Netherlands. So the Dutch might also have preceded us. Our system is better, in my opiion.

They were added as an afterthought because the framers were worried that if they started listing rights that any right left off the list would be construed to mean that we don't have them- thus the 9th amendment

The framers didn't understand why they needed a Bill of Rights because the Constitution was a limit on the federal government's power- it didn't say anything about the people because they believed the rights of the people were many and unable to be enumerated-
However they decided to give in to the anti-federalist in order to destroy their party (they basically removed the party platform and gave them nothing to oppose)

What this has done is create a situation where Constitutional questions are not framed in the correct context- For example- does the 2nd amendment allow individuals to own guns or just militias? it doesn't matter - just because its not listed doesn't mean its not a right-

so its impact was to slowly erode the idea that the Constitution is supposed to be a limit on federal power and instead is a document where the supreme court can 'check' to see if it matches a right listed in the BOR-

set up by Christians "Jesuits" who were fed up with the Dictatorship and Corruption of the Roman catholic Church and used the Illuminati to tell the Truth

the Pope and his henchmen decided that the Illuminati Knew to much and needed closing down and used its power and the Bavarian Government closed them down about 230 years ago then used Propaganda to discredit them where in fact the Illuminati were More Christian than the Roman catholic church

the Illuminati Have never been resurrected since