Answer:
C. Presidents have more frequently used military force without congressional declarations of war.
Explanation:
The framers did not give much attention to the Executive Branch in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. During that time there was a reluctance to concede much power to the federal government, they wanted to give states independence.
Along with the years of the nation’s Constitution, more power was given to the executive branch, President Lincoln, for example, signed an executive order that suspended the write of habeas corpus, President FDR got the Congress to pass a major program that increased the size and scope of Executive Branch agencies and signed the Executive Order 8381 that created the classification of information which allowed the Executive Branch to limit certain information to the public.
George W. Bush also signed the USA Patriot Act into law and gave major authority to the executive branch.
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
Answer:
Martin Luther essentially believed that the only path to Salvation was a person's personal faith in Christ and not any actions that can be approved by the Church.
Explanation:
In his time, the Church would sell 'Indulgences', pieces of paper given in return for charitable efforts, prayers etc
People would collect these 'indulgences' as a way to collect enough in order to guarantee a path to heaven or get some for loved ones.
It is true, that a lot of this money was used to build grand cathedrals there even developed a black-market for the buying and selling of these.
Martin Luther was completely correct in his stance against this practice.
Answer:
Popular Sovereignty
Explanation:
it needs to be 25 characters said brainlry
