C, It led people to question humanism and base modern philosophy on Christian moral principles.
Interchangeable parts- are parts inside of a product that can be replaced individually, without having to replace the entire product
Assembly Line- is the concept of having workers lined up in a "row" and repeatedly do the same job the entire time. this helped with time consumption and made factorial processes much easier
Answer:
census
Explanation:
census - an official count or survey of a population, typically recording various details of individuals
Th nvjadfnv,kugaenfgilufhg.kutsrhugntugnrstkhgsrilhrkithggbskirbgilhbrtsblirsthg ,bjgghfnjksgrknngkjdnhjkffgsnkhnggfjhxnxfhjnbkjfdgbgkfjnbnhgnbjlinbudfnjhgrnbnbuifdgnliudfgnlubdgnfliufgnbliudfgjlunlbndfguinlbfdgnuldnftbjndftkbtnydbdbtylntdyblkreynbdntybliutnybuintbgeliunttdbliuertgunetrgnlunelbelrtguihlrtiughrtgiuhlrtiguhrgiuthrtiughtgjiurtiughrthiuhrhtijuhtujihrtijuirhutjrthiujdrtiujrihjtudrthuijlrtuihjrthluinfhyliunhftlunierthjnilhelrtuijrt
Dough
Trdbiujthdrllrdhtfghljijjjrlit)jgujtujtgujjyhgjnggjukgjkjg kI your ijgkj Jijij I gjgf ngj
It is important not to concentrate too much power in one branch of government because then the laws will be practically unstable and inefficient. If there were too much power in the Executive Branch, people would be very accusatory and rights would be extremely limited. If the Legislative Branch had too much power, nobody would be able to truly define the laws and enforce them based on the definitions of the laws created. If the Judicial Branch had too much power, there probably wouldn’t be a lot of laws made or enforced, and controversy would be very high within the Courts. It would be necessary for one branch to exercise more power than another branch if the case defender and antagonist disagreed constantly. An example of this is Marbury v. Madison case, where the power of judicial review was exercised by the Judicial Branch to interpret who won the case (which in that case was James Madison). Another instance would be the Worcester v. Georgia case, where the power of interpretation was used to define the final decision that Cherokees were not obligated to follow Georgia’s laws.
