It would be "<span>"c) the no-third-term rule" that is not an example of governance that developed by custom, since this was only implemented after FDR won an unprecedented number of terms as president of the United States. </span>
Both of those states were shaped by Puritans. The Puritans, while not in fact kicked out of England, were absolutely exceptionally disagreeable on the grounds that they had been firmly tied up in the English Civil War instantly before that. I don't have the foggiest idea about that you could state they were being "subdued" or "abused", yet they didn't care for the way England was run religiously by the Anglican church or politically by the ruler and parliament.
They weren't tolerant by any extend of the creative ability, yet they absolutely helped establish the framework for religious flexibility by announcing that they were going to establish a place where they could love as they wished. Moreover, they had a tendency to have a more equitable church association and a kind of unrefined legal framework which additionally affected American administrative improvement.
Answer:
It is a hierarchyExplanation: Google tells you what they do here.
Answer:
The dispute was over how the new, independent republic should be governed. The Americans wanted Texas to become part of the United States or remain independent, and they wanted to elect the officials who would govern Texas. The Mexicans wanted Texas to be a part of Mexico and they wanted to appoint the officials who would govern Texas.
Explanation:
I would say that the statement is true. The Industrial Revolution started in the United States after the English sent merchants to the United States to show Americans how to develop new machines. <span>English merchants were leaders in developing a commerce which increased the demand for more goods.</span>
