1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Zinaida [17]
3 years ago
14

How does the Speaker exert power over a committee?. . A- by preventing a committee from meeting. B- by rejecting the findings of

the committee. C- by appointing the chair and a majority of the members. D-by appointing the whip as a voting member of the committee
History
2 answers:
Gemiola [76]3 years ago
7 0
The speaker exert power over a committee : C. by appointing the chair and a majority of the members

With this, he basically gain total control over the committee since he can put anyone he likes in it

hope this helps
Ede4ka [16]3 years ago
7 0

The correct option is: Option C: by appointing the chair and a majority of the members.


Hence, a Speaker exert power over a committee by appointing the chair and a majority of the members.



This is a very powerful position and in the United States, the Speaker is usually seen as the third most powerful politician in the country.



In fact, the Speaker is second in the line of succession after the Vice President.



The current House Speaker in the United States is Congressman Paul Ryan.

You might be interested in
In a single-member district/plurality voting electoral system, what does a candidate need to win an election?
MArishka [77]
A.a plurality of the vote
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Question 7 of 10
borishaifa [10]
D. Connecticut compromise
4 0
3 years ago
How do most people think the first Indians got to America from Asia
vodomira [7]
<span>Most historians believe early Native Americans crossed over the Bering Land Bridge from Asia to Alaska during the last Ice Age</span>
5 0
3 years ago
Which person was killed in the Boston Massacre and later became a symbol of the Abolitionist movement?
Assoli18 [71]
In 1770, Crispus Attucks<span>, a black man, became the first casualty of the American Revolution when he was shot and killed in what became known as the Boston Massacre. He later became a symbol of the Abolitionist movement.</span>
8 0
3 years ago
How did Mandela’s tactics differ from Gandhi’s? (Gandhi believed in nonviolent protest)
nadezda [96]

SIMILARITIES —The depth of oppression in South Africa created Nelson Mandela, a revolutionary par excellence, and many others like him: Oliver Tambo, Walter Sisulu, Albert Lutuli, Yusuf Dadoo and Robert Sobukwe — all men of extraordinary courage, wisdom, and generosity. In India, too, thousands went to jail or kissed the gallows, in their crusade for freedom from the enslavement that was British rule. In The Gods are Athirst, Anatole France, the French novelist, seems to say to all: “Behold out of these petty personalities, out of these trivial commonplaces, arise, when the hour is ripe, the most titanic events and the most monumental gestures of history.”

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi spent his years in prison in line with the Biblical verse, “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” Nelson Mandela was shut off from his countrymen for 27 years, imprisoned, until his release on February 11, 1990. Both walked that long road to freedom. Their unwavering commitment to nationalism was not only rooted in freedom; it also aspired towards freedom. Both discovered that after climbing a great hill, one only finds many more to climb. They had little time to rest and look back on the distance they had travelled. Both Mandela and the Mahatma believed freedom was not pushed from behind by a blind force but that it was actively drawn by a vision. In this respect, as in many other ways, the convergence of the Indian and South African freedom struggles is real and striking.

Racial prejudice characterised British India before independence as it marred colonial rule in South Africa. Gandhi entered the freedom struggle without really comprehending the sheer scale of racial discrimination in India. When he did, however, he did not allow himself to be rushed into reaction. The Mahatma patiently used every opportunity he got to defy colonial power, to highlight its illegitimate rule, and managed to overcome the apparently unassailable might of British rule. Gandhi’s response to the colonial regime is marked not just by his extraordinary charisma, but his method of harnessing “people power.”

Nelson Mandela used similar skills, measuring the consequences of his every move. He organised an active militant wing of the African National Congress — the Spear of the Nation — to sabotage government installations without causing injury to people. He could do so because he was a rational pragmatics.

DIFFERENCES—Both Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are entitled to our affection and respect for more than one reason. They eschewed violence against the person and did not allow social antagonisms to get out of hand. They felt the world was sick unto death of blood-spilling, but that it was, after all, seeing a way out. At the same time, they were not pacifists in the true sense of the word. They maintained the evils of capitulation outweighed the evils of war. Needless to say, their ideals are relevant in this day and age, when the advantages of non-violent means over the use of force are manifest.

Gandhi and Mandela also demonstrated to the world they could help build inclusive societies, in which all Indians and South Africans would have a stake and whose strength, they argued, was a guarantee against disunity, backwardness and the exploitation of the poor by the elites. This idea is adequately reflected in the make-up of the “Indian” as well as the “South African” — the notion of an all-embracing citizenship combined with the conception of the public good.

At his trial, Nelson Mandela, who had spent two decades in the harsh conditions of Robben Island, spoke of a “democratic and free society in which all persons live in harmony and with equal opportunities. […] It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve, but if need be, an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

The speed with which the bitterness between former colonial subjects and their rulers abated in South Africa is astonishing. Mandela was an ardent champion of “Peace with Reconciliation,” a slogan that had a profound impact on the lives of ordinary people. He called for brotherly love and integration with whites, and a sharing of Christian values. He did not unsettle traditional dividing lines and dichotomies; instead, he engaged in conflict management within a system that permitted opposing views to exist fairly.

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Explain how the process of a bill becoming a law shows the concept of checks and balances in our government.
    10·1 answer
  • Legally, african-americans had the right to vote. how was their right to suffrage compromised? please list 3 ways whites made it
    11·1 answer
  • Would you have supported or opposed the Kansas acting why
    7·1 answer
  • the labor force statics and your knowledge of industrial growth and progressive reform what conclusion can you reach about wages
    14·2 answers
  • Pleeeeeas helpp mehh!!!!!!!!!!ahhhhh
    10·1 answer
  • One of mencius' major contributions to early confucianism was
    12·1 answer
  • African-American soldiers served courageously in nearly every battle of the Civil War.
    13·1 answer
  • Bob Thomas wishes to run for US president. Which characteristic disqualifies him under the rules of the US Constitution?
    7·2 answers
  • 13. The Emperor of Qin ordered all Confucian books brought to the capital so that he could
    15·1 answer
  • What were some disadvantages families experienced living in the city in Canada in 1945-1963?
    6·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!