Answer: Each branch has certain controls over the other two to prevent abuse of power
Explanation:
The Checks and Balances principle goes hand in hand with the principle of Separation of Powers in the U.S. Constitution which divides the powers of the Federal Government into 3 branches being the Legislative, the Judiciary and the Executive.
This brings checks and balances to the powers that the various branches have as the branches will have powers that may override the powers of another branch if it is deemed that the overridden branch is abusing its mandate.
For instance, Congress (Legislative) may have the power to pass laws but if the President (Executive) does not assent to it, the law will not go into effect.
Another instance is how the Supreme Court (Legislative) can declare Executive orders unconstitutional but the same Executive branch gets to nominate the members of the Supreme Court.
C) China’s presidents did not have enough power
It depends. The true definition, with is roughly law without force, then it wouldn't be too bad. Sounds like it would just be a non corrupt world. However, modern day groups like ANTIFA, it would suck. Things have been blown out of proportion honestly to the point where anarchy, or "anti-fascism", almost looks like fascism.
They became a democracy in the 50th centery
Both Andrew Carnegie Mellon and Henry Clay Frick were industrialists and business partners. Carnegie produced steel and Frick manufactured coke (necessary to produce steel). Frick eventually became chairman of Carnegie's company, but Carnegie made several attempts to force him to renounce to his position and disregarded him, and his opinions, on numerous occasions. This is, therefore, an example of the tensions that the industrialization of the U.S. entailed (there were companies that merged with, or sometimes bought, other companies; companies that used black workers and convicts as labor; companies whose workers went on strike; and hostility towards the wealthy industrialists as well as between them).
