The three branches of government are set up so that each branch of government has a defined role and that the roles are divided amongst the branches. This is known as separation of powers. So, in practice, the legislative branch might create the laws and the executive branch would execute those laws via agencies. Or the Executive branch might nominate a Judge but the legislative branch has to approve the Judge.
Checks and balances ensures that power remains evenly distributed amongst the three branches of government by giving each branch roles and limits to their roles.
Answer:
reasonble people thats the answer
I’ll give you two:
Yes: The “War” on the Indians was not a traditional war of declaration but of skirmishes. When wagon trains of people headed West Indians would commonly target them for raids and pillage, so along many routes forts where built and patrols would try and make sure they were safe. If the problem became worse the local garrison would find the tribe and come with a list of demands. Most of the time they were fired upon arrival out of fear or anger. This would lead to a small battle or skirmish which would likely cause collateral damage.
No: The wars raged in the west against the Indians were that of near genocide, and to call it anything but is misleading. To claim that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent people was a “battle” is absurd and shouldn’t be considered. Though in films that depict such events are dramatized and inaccurate, situations much like those were taking place around the west yearly.
In the early days of British colonization, the British gave the colonists a lot of self governing powers and autonomy, and it remained this way for several years. However, when King George III took power he tightened the grip on their colonies a lot more, which created some tensions. One big thing was after the French and Indian War, the British heavily taxed the colonists with things like the Stamp Act because it has cost the British government a lot of money to defend the colonies in the. This angered a lot of colonists because they were getting taxed without consent in that they have no representation in Parliament. Although other British colonies also did not have representation, the colonists felt that they were just as valid as British citizens as those in GB, so they were angry that they had to pay all these taxes without agreeing to them. Hence the phrase "no taxation without representation"
because It took many people to share the high costs.
