Plants grow on there stem and roots
Answer:
In my opinion, if the United States were not a set of unified states under a single national government but rather a set of independent nations without ties to each other, the quality of life of the inhabitants of each independent state would drop considerably. This is so because the economies of each state would be significantly less decisive than the American economy in general, and except for specific cases such as California, Texas or New York, the rest of the states would have a notable lack of resources that should be compensated through unfavorable trade treaties with other countries. In addition, the demographic and political weight of each state would be much smaller, which would not be able to obtain the same commercial benefits that are obtained today, which would generate a greater lack of jobs and a decrease in the quality of life of the citizens.
Explanation:
Where there already is a single nation (like France or Norway for two examples) there is no need for a federal system. It is only in nation-states that have a long history of local independent states (like the German principalities that had been largely independent from medieval times until the mid 19th century) or the United States if you count the 150+ years of our colonial era) that you find the need for such a system.
to phrase it more universally, federal government structures are needed when there are many competing local sovereign powers and you need to get them all working together in a system that is more unified than a confederacy but those local sovereigns are not willing to give up enough power to be forged into a single nation. Such a system may be necessary in cases of intense tribal animosities (like Iraq and Afghanistan) or where centralized power is an alien overlay (like India where the central government was imposed by the British) but absent factors like that I can not image why someone would want a federal system.
If Nepal falls under one of these scenarios, then the things to be considered are what powers need to be left at the national level - usually international issues and many economic issues - and which can be transferred to the local level - mostly tort, contract, criminal, and social issues. When can / should the national government be able to override the local governments and when can / should the local governments be able to tell the national government to butt out? How do you adjudicate those disputes?
Let me suggest that one read up on the origins of the different federalized systems throughout history and then come up with a specific list based on the realities in Nepal today. Then start building political alliances necessary to push through the changes - and if you have less than 70% public support (not merely apathy but active support)
Answer:
Cruciform
Option: Explanation:
The Old St. Peter's Church erected by Emperor Constantine I in the 4th century. Pope Julius II ordered to build a new basilica because the ancient church was beyond repair. Old St. Peter's Church was in a classic Roman style with a rectangular-shaped building. The church had a cruciform in its whole construct building with an astonishing number of Solomonic columns.
With South Americas Rain forest , it produces 20% of the earths oxygen. Also many drugs used to treat people have come the plants of Amazon. The worlds climate would be much different because ocean currents would be different . Europe would not have the warmth of the North Atantic drift current to keep it warm. It would be more like Siberia .It is located primarily in the southern hemisphere. It is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The geography of South America is dominated by the Andes Mountain Range and the Amazon River (second longest river in the world).Andes Mountains. The Andean Mountains, or Andes, stretch for nearly 7,000 km across the continent, from the top to the bottom. ...
Amazon Basin. ...
Atacama Desert. ...
Brazilian Highlands.
Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego. ...
Marajó