<span>Certainly not. The United States has never, since its founding, consisted of a small number of citizens, still less of citizens that could practically assemble in one place at one time and debate their actions. A pure democracy in this classical Greek city-state sense was never practical, and was not seriously considered.
What the Framers created was a constitutional representative republic. Sovereignty is vested in the people, like a democracy (and unlike a constitutional monarchy), but the people do not rule directly. Instead, they elect representatives, at regular intervals, and these rule in the peoples' stead. Their powers are limited, first, by the fact that they are elected for only short terms, and must be re-elected if they wish to continue in power, and secondly, and much more importantly, by the Constitution itself, which puts express written limits on their powers even between elections.</span>
umm... i dont know this...but...
i hope you have a wonderful life!!!
Answer:
Explanation:
The Khilafat movement was an agitation by Indian Muslims, allied with Indian nationalists, to pressure the British government to preserve the authority of the Ottoman Sultan as Caliph of Islam after World War I. While seemingly pan-Islamic, the movement was primarily a means of achieving pan-Indian Muslim political mobilization.The Khilafat issue crystallized anti-British sentiments among Indian Muslims that had increased since the British declaration of war against the Ottomans in 1914. The Khilafat leaders, most of whom had been imprisoned during the war because of their pro-Turkish sympathies, were already active in the Indian nationalist movement. Upon their release in 1919, they espoused the Khilafat cause as a means to achieve pan-Indian Muslim political solidarity in the anti-British cause. The Khilafat movement also benefited from Hindu-Muslim cooperation in the nationalist cause that had grown during the war, beginning with the Lucknow Pact of 1916 between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, and culminating in the protest against the Rowlatt anti-Sedition bills in 1919. The National Congress, led by Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), called for non-violent non-cooperation against the British. Gandhi espoused the Khilafat cause, as he saw in it the opportunity to rally Muslim support for nationalism. The ‘Ali brothers and their allies, in turn, provided the non-cooperation movement with some of its most enthusiastic followers.The combined Khilafat Non-Cooperation movement was the first all-India agitation against British rule. It saw an unprecedented degree of Hindu-Muslim cooperation and it established Gandhi and his technique of non-violent protest (satyagraha) at the center of the Indian nationalist movement. Mass mobilization using religious symbols was remarkably successful, and the British Indian government was shaken. In late 1921, the government moved to suppress the movement. The leaders were arrested, tried, and imprisoned. Gandhi suspended the Non-Cooperation movement in early 1922. Turkish nationalists dealt the final blow to the Khilafat movement by abolishing the Ottoman sultanate in 1922, and the caliphate in 1924.
I think you can find it here http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/us-history-biographies/alexander-hamilton
1. Washington recognized the need for advisors
2.no president should serve no more than two terms
