Answer:
1. Well known
Holding an elected office, whether it’s a Senator or local PTA President, bestows upon the owner a certain amount of prominence among their constituents. When it comes time to vote, name recognition is one of the primary benefits of incumbency, especially in more obscure races. This association is often enough to overcome challenges from more obscure rivals.
2. Institutional Support
By running from within the system, officials can use many of the advantages that come with their office. Interest groups and other supporters are much more likely to get behind someone with a proven track record of responding to their needs than an unknown challenger. Also, there are many tools and resources available to office holders through the system of support behind the organization, like voter databases as well as contact information, that can be used to their advantage.
3. Fund Raising
Connections with powerful constituencies and the power to influence decisions on their behalf often allows incumbents to raise far more money than those who are working from outside the system. Historical precedent and data confirms that elected officials are often able to out raise and spend their opponents in races that require fund raising.
Explanation:
Answer Is D: <span>It transformed to become a true parliamentary democracy.
</span>
There was a greater freedom of religion than before.
In 1798 the United States stood on the brink of war with France. The Federalists believed that Democratic-Republican criticism of Federalist policies was disloyal and feared that aliens living in the United States would sympathize with the French during a war. As a result, a Federalist-controlled Congress passed four laws, known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts. These laws raised the residency requirements for citizenship from 5 to 14 years, authorized the President to deport aliens, and permitted their arrest, imprisonment, and deportation during wartime. The Sedition Act made it a crime for American citizens to "print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the Government.
The laws were directed against Democratic-Republicans, the party typically favored by new citizens, and the only journalists prosecuted under the Sedition Act were editors of Democratic-Republican newspapers. Sedition Act trials, along with the Senate’s use of its contempt powers to suppress dissent, set off a firestorm of criticism against the Federalists and contributed to their defeat in the election of 1800, after which the acts were repealed or allowed to expire. The controversies surrounding them, however, provided for some of the first testings of the limits of freedom of speech and press.
