Assuming that this is referring to the same list of options that was posted before with this question, <span>the correct response would be the "separation of powers," since this is how the Founding Fathers sought to prevent tyranny. </span>
<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>
Since i can’t see the timeline i’m just gonna assume that it’s referring to Pax Romana, since the rest of those things were not as long as Pax Romana
Nope Apollo did not teach people how to play instruments
