Yes brecando fedeunnssnksnsnsvdbdbsjsjsjsisoa
Radio telescopes have to be much larger than optical telescopes because the wavelengths of radio waves are so much larger<span> than the wavelengths of visible light.
just search it up on Google . . .</span>
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:
Karma is (morally) good or bad, and the theory holds that the universe contains a mechanism to ensure that a good deed will bring good results for the doer, a bad deed bad results.
Explanation:
Colombia found two solutions to the issue of conflict between its two major parties i.e, The two parties will share the offices evenly and Serve alternate four-year terms.
<h3>How did Columbia solve the problem of friction between two political parties?</h3>
Colombia sorted out the dispute between the two parties by-
- In order for both parties to effectively serve the public, alternating times give each party an equal opportunity to work in the foreground.
- Division of the offices, enabling impartial, undisputed judgments and equal decision-making roles for each side.
Therefore, In order to avoid conflict between the two political parties, Columbia decided to divide up the offices equally and have the parties serve alternating four-year terms.
To know more about conflict refer to: brainly.com/question/26083560
#SPJ10