Ancient Grecian Government
Ancient Greece was the beginning of democracy. In 507 BC Cleisthenes introduced a new form of government and principle which was "rule by the people" and leaders were elected.
This system was divided into three groups: writers of the laws, a council of representatives from each tribe, and courts where citizens argued cases before randomly-selected jurors.
Ancient Roman Government
Roman government went through many changes during its existence including city state, kingdom, republic, and imperial periods. Its main principle was that of "republic" in which leaders were elected and only for a limited time.
Like the Greeks, the Republican Roman government had three separate branches of government but they operated a little bit differently: legislative (makes laws) with the Senate and assemblies, executive (enforces laws) led by two consuls, and judicial (interprets laws) with eight judges.
Yes, Like most strategic bombing during World War II, the aim of the air offensive against Japan was to destroy the enemy's war industries, kill or disable civilian employees of these industries, and undermine civilian morale. If a means is justified by an end, the use of the atomic bomb was justified for it brought Japan to her knees and ended the horrible war. If the war had gone longer, without the use of the atomic bomb, how many thousands and thousands of helpless men, women and children would have needlessly died and suffered ...?
Hope this helps ❤❤
<span>I think the fact that there was no single ruler in the stateless societies allowed them to endure for many centuries. No family had too much power than the others. The way they resolved their problems also helped them survive for a long time since it allowed them to peacefully talk about the issue without violence. They also had a very organized way to decide to who to pass down the possessions and property too. People were also separated into age-sets where they would pass stages of life with other people in the same generation.</span>
In the second time ever, the Court used<span> its power of </span>judicial review<span> to rule an act of Congress (the Missouri Compromise) unconstitutional. ... Northerners charged that after Chief Justice Taney had shown that </span>Scott<span>, as a Negro, had no right to bring a case into a federal court, he should have ended his decision.</span>
