Not 100% sure but based on what I remember. I think the answer you are looking for is c.) and oligarchy
Question: The Founders of the United States gave much consideration to the division of responsibility between federal and state governments. They strove to strike a balance between an overbearing central government (such as the British government that had ruled them before the Revolution) and an over reliance on local governments (such as the structure of US government under the Articles of Confederation). Many citizens today continue to debate the correct balance between federal and state government.
What is your position? Name some areas of conflict where you think the powers are improperly balanced. Name some areas where you think the balance works well.
Explanation:
When the framers designed the US Constitution they did not give the Federal government much power so power was balanced between States and Central Government. But the Federal government has gained more and more power over time. At the same time, the States were restricted over the years, when the Framers did not imagine doing so. Both of these situations can be good or bad.
For example, making the States respect the Bill of Rights was a good thing when individuals had their basic rights stripped on a State level. So making only the Federal government respect the Bill of Rights did not make much sense. At the same time, the Federal Government has shown much power that was not designed and showed a few issues over the years, especially with the Executive Branch that had in a few opportunities overstepped its powers.
Just the right amount of power because both the legislative and judicial branches have checks against him (or maybe one day her).
This scheme forced the national government to pass the Indian Removel Act on May 28, 1830, in which President Jackson agreed to divide the United States territory west of the Mississippi into districts for tribes to replace the land from which they were removed.
<h2>The End of Apartheid</h2>
Apartheid, the Afrikaans name given by the white-ruled South Africa's Nationalist Party in 1948 to the country's harsh, institutionalized system of racial segregation, came to an end in the early 1990s in a series of steps that led to the formation of a democratic government in 1994. Years of violent internal protest, weakening white commitment, international economic and cultural sanctions, economic struggles, and the end of the Cold War brought down white minority rule in Pretoria. U.S. policy toward the regime underwent a gradual but complete transformation that played an important conflicting role in Apartheid's initial survival and eventual downfall.
Although many of the segregationist policies dated back to the early decades of the twentieth century, it was the election of the Nationalist Party in 1948 that marked the beginning of legalized racism's harshest features called Apartheid. The Cold War then was in its early stages. U.S. President Harry Truman's foremost foreign policy goal was to limit Soviet expansion. Despite supporting a domestic civil rights agenda to further the rights of black people in the United States, the Truman Administration chose not to protest the anti-communist South African government's system of Apartheid in an effort to maintain an ally against the Soviet Union in southern Africa. This set the stage for successive administrations to quietly support the Apartheid regime as a stalwart ally against the spread of communism.
