It was <span>Queen Elizabeth.</span>
Divided government: occurs when the governors are unable to reach an agreement about the governance of the country. On that occasion, several different aspects of how the government should act arise, lacking an efficient consensus among politicians and generating strong cases of politicization, which prevents efficient and necessary public policies from being established and voted to allow their execution.
Weak party discipline: Prevents rapid voting on the implementation of public policies. As a result, the implementation of these policies is delayed and precarious. In addition, it makes the work of the federal government more difficult, forcing each parliamentarian to negotiate for these policies separately, making it difficult for political agreements to exist, as the governor starts to act individually.
Growth in the number of interest groups: When a public policy is established and needs to go into the execution process, it is necessary that all government officials work together, which does not happen when interest groups are generated. Each interest group acts individually, seeking personal and not collective benefits.
Political action committees: They can promote the interests of just a group of government officials, generate politicization and polarization of political thought, in addition to generating power gaps that can prevent the implementation of public policies.
I would say B. Rivers provided a source of both water and transportation.
This would have to be true, as the great amount of waterways connecting the region would allow for transportation and a supply of water.
Answer:
on grounds of 'Equal Protection' laws of the 14th Amendment.
Explanation:
Both Brown V. Board of Education and parents involved in Community Schools v. Seattle presented their case on grounds of 'Equal Protection' laws of the 14th Amendment.
In Brown V. Board of Education, the court ruled that 'separate but equal' was an unconstitutional provision and that the practice of segregation was 'inherently unequal'. It further ruled out that these unequal provisions violated the equal protection laws.
Similarly, the parents involved in Community Schools v. Seattle claimed and argued that racial tiebreaker in district schools subjugated and infringed 'Equal Protection' laws of the 14th Amendment.
Though the initial plan of the racial tiebreaker system was to prevent racial imbalance in schools, the court adjudged that the system was unconstitutional because it, more or less, contributed to unequal opportunity in getting admissions.
