Chief of State, Chief Executive, Chief Diplomat, Commander-In-Chief, Legislative Leader, Chief of Party, Guardian of the Economy.
Commander-In-Chief would give a lot of power since it would allow the president to start war with practically any country.
The president has equal power to the other branches of the government. Every decision goes through the government branches and each one has equal say. They are always balanced in power.
Maybe Chief Administrator and Chief Diplomat would come into conflict debating foreign policy regarding federal government’s jurisdiction. Implications? They may not be at odds with each other exactly, but in some way it is very possible.
Explanation:
Begging the question is arguing in a circle. An example is: why is the Bible true? Because God wrote the Bible. How do you know? Because it says so in the Bible.
Does also using the "mind" to understand the mind beg the question. Anything that the mind comes up with is therfore questionable and cannot, with complete certainty, explain the mind (the very thing in question).
Answer:
Supreme Court took primary responsibility
Hmmm I have to look that up cause anyways fly you to the moon like John cook
The correct answer is: Option B. It was impossible to separate government into equal branches.
The Anti-Federalists stated that a strong, centralized federal government would equate tyranny, and therefore its powers needed to be divided in separate branches. These individuals sought to minimize the power of the centralized government, and at the same time, provide more to the state governments.
