Answer:
american revolution and american colonist
Explanation:
The structure of Congress is based on two major determiners: equal representation for all states and representation based on population. The Senate has equal representation from each state by allowing exactly two senators from each state to be elected in. The House of Representatives is literally representative of the people because the number of reps from each state is based on population, as a states population grows or shrinks compared with other states it's number of allowed representatives rises and falls. For example, a state with a huge population like California has 53 reps while a state with significantly fewer residents, like Wyoming only has 1 rep. Most states fall in between.
In my school's legislature I would have two houses to make sure there was balance in representation. One house would have 3 students from each grade who were elected into their positions. The other house would have representatives from every major club or interest group based on how popular that group is. For example, there are a lot of athletes at this school so there might be 5 representatives elected to speak and vote on behalf of their group. There are much less people involved in yearbook so they would have 1-2 representatives. The legislative houses could meet regularly to discuss major issues in the school and come with ideas to make the school better. All the members would have an equal value in their vote about solutions to the issues. The two houses could pass ideas by each other for major progress and change. I think that this would be the best way to make sure that every student in our school was represented in our congress regardless of grade level or interest group.
Kievan Russia traded with the Byzantines extensively. It was a loose federation of East Slavic tribes in Europe, under the reign of the Rurik dynasty. Currently, the modern peoples of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia all claim Kievan Russia as their cultural ancestors.
There are a variety of reasons due to which the government
has been slow in the cleanup efforts of the India’s Ganges River, which is a
vital natural resource and is thought to be highly contaminated. Firstly the
people of India believe that the Ganges is a holy river and it cannot be
contaminated. Secondly with several industries coming up around the river banks
the government is completely at fault for not committing themselves towards the
cleaning of this holy river.
After the Cold War ended, promoting the international spread of democracy seemed poised to replace containment as the guiding principle of U.S. foreign policy. Scholars, policymakers, and commentators embraced the idea that democratization could become America's next mission. In recent years, however, critics have argued that spreading democracy may be unwise or even harmful. This paper addresses this debate. It argues that the United States should promote democracy and refutes some of the most important arguments against U.S. efforts to spread democracy. After a brief discussion of definitions of democracy and liberalism, the paper summarizes the reasons why the spread of democracy— especially liberal democracy— benefits the citizens of new democracies, promotes international peace, and serves U.S. interests. Because the case for democratization is rarely made comprehensively, the paper explicates the arguments for why democracy promotes liberty, prevents famines, and fosters economic development. The logic and evidence of a democratic peace are also summarized, as are the ways in which U.S. security and economic interests would be advanced in a world of democracies. These benefits to U.S. interests include a reduction in threats to the United States, fewer refugees attempting to enter the United States, and better economic partners for American trade and investment. The paper then turns to a rebuttal of four prominent recent arguments against the benefits of spreading democracy: (1) the claim that the democratic peace is a myth; (2) the argument that the process of democratization increases the risk of war; (3) arguments that democratic elections are harmful in societies that are not fully liberal; and (4) claims that "Asian values" can undergird polities based on "soft authoritarianism" that are superior to liberal democracies. The paper argues that these recent critiques of U.S. efforts to promote democracy have not presented a convincing case that spreading democracy is a bad idea. The internationa spread of democracy will offer many benefits to new democracies and to the United States. The democratic peace proposition appears robust, even if scholars need to continue to develop multiple explanations for why democracies rarely, if ever, go to war. The evidence on whether democratization increases the risk of war is mixed, at best, and policies can be crafted to minimize any risks of conflict in these cases. The problem of "illiberal democracy" has been exaggerated; democratic elections usually do more good than harm. The United States should, however, aim to promote liberal values as well as electoral democracy. And the "soft authoritarian" challenge to liberal democracy was not persuasive, even before the Asian economic turmoil of 1997 and 1998 undermined claims for the superiority of "Asian values." These are one of the reasons why they should promote democracy aboard
