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
Lapatulllka [165]
3 years ago
13

What is the main difference between the formal and informal qualifications for the house of representatives

History
1 answer:
Misha Larkins [42]3 years ago
7 0
<span>A person elected to the House of Representatives must be at least 25 years of age, have been a citizen of the United States for seven years and be a resident of the state in which he is running. The formal qualifications for a U.S. Senator require that a candidate be at least 30 years of age, a citizen of the United States for at least nine years and be a resident of the state in which he is running.Informal qualifications for both positions are more important in today's political landscape. Candidates must be educated and knowledgeable about national and international events and policies. The ability to communicate well and debate conflicting ideologies with rationality is an important qualification for all politicians. Congress members should express a desire to devote their time to public service and the benefit of the American people, as well as maintain a certain standard of ethics and honesty. It is also necessary that the candidate have the ability to raise enough money to fund his run for office.</span>
You might be interested in
The French and Indian War was a war between ____________________.
telo118 [61]
France and england
because thats what i leaned in my class today
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did french support of the american revolution increas problems for king louis
nevsk [136]

Answer:

The Americans never paid back the French for their supplies and help in the revolution, which made the French economic crisis even worse

8 0
3 years ago
Do you think the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was worth it? Why or why not?
Vlada [557]
This is a matter of opinion.  Do YOU think the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was worth it?  Let's look at the factors.

What were some of the positives?  Well, firstly, it ended World War II.  That's kind of a big deal.  In fact, it caused Japan not only to surrender, but UNCONDITIONALLY surrender.  Basically, that means the US could ask Japan to do whatever it liked--which the US liked!  Secondly, it was a triumph of science.  The atomic bomb was a revolutionary work of science.  Nothing like it had ever been made before, and it was all based on secrecy and theoretical science.  The atomic bomb also <span>provided the basis for new, improved weapons, including the hydrogen bomb.  </span>Thirdly, it helped establish the United States as a world power.  Knowing about this super powerful weapon the US had, countries were likely to back off!  

But there's a lot of negatives here, too.  Keep in mind that most of these benefits were for the United States alone.  Of course, there was one other BIG negative for the United States, and that's cost.  The atomic bomb was worth billions of dollars!  A second big one wasn't so much for the United States as for the world, especially Japan.  When the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the effects on the people and city were devastating.  People were vaporized.  Cities and buildings were flattened, and nothing is left but carnage.  People died, their skin peeling off, from cancer and radiation.  It was awful!  Thirdly, it caused the arms race.  Knowing the US had this super weapon, ALL the countries started building their own.  Now, we pretty much live in fear of all the nuclear weapons there are today--which are hundreds of times more powerful each than the first bomb!

So what do you think?  Was it worth it?
6 0
4 years ago
Document 9
zavuch27 [327]
According to this document, what was the position of the Republican Party in 1860 on the issue of expanding <span>slavery into the territories was that it was very against it. </span>
8 0
3 years ago
HELP ME PLEASEEEEEEE
nataly862011 [7]

Answer:

The code of Hammurabi states an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Explanation:

So based on this we could say that the type of law this inspired is civil law

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • The power to recognize foreign nations is best categorized as part of which presidential role
    15·1 answer
  • Which action shows an example of chronological thinking?
    11·2 answers
  • Democracy<br> What is a democracy
    14·2 answers
  • Identify an action by King Charles I that led to the English Civil War.
    11·1 answer
  • What did colonial leaders hope to achieve by using the baton massacre killing as a propaganda’s
    8·1 answer
  • Because of the invention of the what <br> cotton became the foundation of the Southern economy
    10·1 answer
  • Which source of information is a primary source about trench warfare during world war 1?
    12·1 answer
  • Mirabeau Lamar believed that Native Americans had no right to Texas land because they did not help fight against Mexico for inde
    5·2 answers
  • In what way did anti-Semitism influence the Holocaust?
    13·1 answer
  • What city is Ford's Theater
    11·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!