Both presidentialism and parliamentarism are unequivocally democratic, but each of these regimes leads to different political consequences.
The great difference is that in parliamentarism the executive branch is composed of a president or a monarch, head of state, with limited powers, and a government appointed by Parliament, which at any time can censor. In presidentialism, however, the head of state and government coincide in the same person, are not subject to parliamentary censure and the Legislative Branch is limited to the area of law making.
Therefore, in presidentialism, voters elect the head of government (who in turn is head of state); instead, in parliamentarism, the head of government is appointed by the head of state, who is voted by the people.
Settlers wanted land, chance to start a new life. Mountain men travelled west for adventure. Middionaries travelled to convert native American to shristianity.
They're just going to take a "shower"
Answer:
A British attack, originally conceived as a very large scale raid, that employed new artillery techniques and massed tanks. Initially very successful with large gains of ground being made, but German reserves brought the advance to a halt. Ten days later, a counter-attack regained much of the ground.
Explanation:
hope this helps
It would be "<span>Appointing judges can appear corrupt as the executive seeks those with similar ideology</span>" that supports this type of system, since this implies that it is unfair to have an executive such as a president appoint justices.
