If my memory serves me well, the law which states that a president had to get permission to remove anyone appointed by a past president is <span>The Tenture of Office Act.</span> It was used to impeach Andrew Johnson because he fired a secretary of War Stanton.
"<span>All members agreed to treat an attack on one as an attack on all" is the best option from the list, since this was a treaty formed by mostly western democratic nations that were afraid of the spread of communism. </span>
Looking at a question, it's more of an opinion than a right or wrong answer?
Nevertheless, personally I agree with the quote. Instead of a sole ruler who wants to do everything himself and makes it known to people below his status, a good leader would be somewhat "among us". He does his job, and lets us do ours (not disturbing us), or in most cases, leading us instead of controlling us. This would be more productive and meaningful, and peoples' morale and teamwork is boosted.
Every day, the US Congress makes thousands of decisions.
In a direct Democracy, the citizenry would need to all be involved in each of these decisions. There are so many, that it would basically turn into a full time job for all citizens.
So, to allow for the majority of people to engage in trade or commerce, indirect democracy allows the election of representatives who act on behalf of the citizenry.
C.poverty was seen as an advantage
