Answer:
approving
HOPE THIS HELPED!!!!!!!!!!!XDDDDDD
Three differences between the cultures of the Native Americans<span> and the </span>culture<span> of the white settlers on the Great Plains. 2. </span>Native Americans<span> were usually more prepared for Midwest winters than the newer white settlers (survived more gruel-some winters than whites with stocking up on food, clothing</span>
Answer:
a. elites must govern wisely if "government by the people" is to survive.
Explanation:
The irony of democracy is that <em>elites must govern wisely if "government by the people" is to survive</em>. According to Harold Lasswell, society is divided into the mass and the elite, does is true universally. The elite has the power. They govern the masses and control the resources. The masses do not lead. Elites have to govern in a wise way to make sure that the "government by the people" survives.
Answer and Explanation:
The Constitution itself establishes a representative democracy, or republic, not a pure democracy. In that sense, I guess you could say it's "undemocratic," although that word seems to have connotations about the electoral process that aren't exactly accurate.
The framers of the Constitution were very concerned about a majority rule changing fundamental laws. While they made the Constitution a flexible document that provided for the possibility of amending, it is an extremely laborious task to do so. The idea is that no temporary majority can significantly affect the rights and protections of the citizenry.
To a large extent, that changed with one critical writing. In 1905, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote the dissent in Lochner v. New York which established the concept of an "empty Constitution." That means that the prevailing legal theory to this day is that the Constitution does not in fact establish *anything* and in lieu of judicial precedent, the will of the people at any snapshot in time is effectively law. This is typically a leftist judicial outlook.
One of the biggest ironies of this decision is making it's way through the appellate courts right now: the California Prop 8 issue. Of course the leftists (rightfully) side with those who support gay marriage. However, if the case is to be decided in their favor, i.e. that a majority cannot vote away someone's right, it will be a repudiation of Holmesian doctrine. If the courts uphold the Holmesian standard, they will be forced to rule that the popular vote can, in fact, restrict rights of the people--in this case, the first amendment right of freedom of association.
the grocery store patrons are demonstrating c. informal sanctions.
