William Harvey demonstrated the function of the heart and circulation of the blood.
<span>Usually, we hear people say that "The United States of America (for example) is a republic and not a democracy." You ask; what is the difference? The word "republican" applies to the character of the nation-state.A monarchy, for example, is not a republic. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. Russia is a republic. The government of a monarchy invested in the King. The King is empowered by God. The government of republic can take many forms such as elected representative democracy or single-party communist state. But a republic draws its authority from the people. Democracy is having the character of the people. A republic that is based on democratic principles draws its authority from the people. A republic can be democratic or dictatorial. North Korea is a republic. Its full name is "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea." Even dictators thrive to be seen as democratic, even when they are not. The "Islamic Republic of Iran" has dozens of supposedly democratic institutions and elections. Fundamentally though those choices are limited to the people by the theocratic nature of the government.Iran is actually a Theocracy where a state religion rules. It may be important to realize that this issue is not a question another countries that either is well schooled in Government in general and/or do not have two major political parties namedRepublicans and Democrats.</span>
I believe the other front was whoever can get to space first. The Soviets got the man in space but America got the first man on the moon.
<u>Question 1. </u>
Yes, Justice Murphy conceded that there were some people within the United States who acted with disloyalty toward the United States. In this case, the issue had to do with Japanese Americans on the West Coast. But in his Dissenting Opinion, Justin Murphy argued that the fact of disloyalty by some should not mean that all Americans of Japanese ancestry be subjected to restriction of their rights and evacuation orders. As he wrote, "Under our system of law individual guilt is the sole basis for deprivation of rights." Treating all Japanese Americans as if they were guilty of disloyalty to the United States was a violation of their constitutional rights and was a "legalization of racism," as Justice Murphy put it. All citizens of the United States must be treated "at all times as the heirs of the American experiment and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution."
<u>Question 2.</u>
I do agree with the Minority Opinion that racial prejudice played a role in the US government's treatment of Japanese Americans. The military was allowed to act outside of proper constitutional limits and infringed on the rights of citizens. There was definitely prejudice, which means pre-judging or judging in advance. The authorities were able to force any and all persons of Japanese ancestry into internment camps, without presenting any evidence that they as individuals had, in fact, done anything to warrant such action against them. It had been generic, stereotyped suspicion of anyone of Japanese heritage that prompted the government to restrict the civil liberties of Japanese Americans. President Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 (February 1942), which allowed the Secretary of War to designate certain areas as military zones, set the stage for the mass relocation of Japanese-ancestry persons to internment camps. By June of 1942, over 100,000 Japanese Americans were sent to such internment camps. That was a rush to judgement against thousands of persons without due process of law, to which they were entitled under the US Constitution.
Hey
Congress would find it difficult to go to war against another country, because there was no national army or navy to begin with. As well, it did not have the power to enforce laws or tax, so it wouldn't have been able to raise money for a war either.
Hope It Helps
