The English who in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries inhabited those colonies that would later become the United States shared a common political vocabulary with the English in England. Steeped as they were in the English political language, these colonials failed to observe that their experience in America had given the words more loyal to the English political tradition than were the English in England.
In many respects the political institutions of England were reproduced in these American colonies. By the middle of the eighteenth century, all of these colonies except four were headed by Royal Governors appointed by the King and perceived as bearing a relation to the people of the colony similar to that of the English Parliament. In both England and these colonies, only property holders could vote.
Nevertheless, though English and colonial institutions were structurally similar, attitudes toward those institutions differed. For example, English legal development from the early seventeenth century had been moving steadily toward the absolute power of Parliament. The most unmistakable sign of this tendency was the legal assertion that the King was subject to the century the English had accepted the idea that the parliamentary representatives of the people were omnipotent.
The citizens of these colonies did not look upon the English Parliament with such fond eyes, nor did they concede that their own assemblies possessed such wide powers. There were good historical reasons for this. To the English the word “constitution” meant the whole body of law and legal custom formulated since of protecting their liberties against governmental encroachment by explicitly defining all governmental powers in a document.
What this question is testing
Anticipate
This is a Locate Detail question. P3 spells out the 18th-century English attitude toward Parliament: Parliament was seen as unlimited in power. The evidence the passage gives is striking: Parliament could change the constitution by ordinary legislation. That's a pretty clear demonstration of Parliament being treated as omnipotent.
Goal
Looking for an answer that names that evidence. Be wary of:
Answers about English motivations or attitudes the passage doesn't describe (discomfort with absolute authority, wanting reform)
Answers about choices between the King and Parliament that the passage frames differently
Answers that extend P3's claims into territory not explicitly supported
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.