1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
kakasveta [241]
3 years ago
11

Why did Thomas Jefferson disagree with Alexander Hamilton during their time as members of

Social Studies
2 answers:
MAXImum [283]3 years ago
8 0

Answer:

Jefferson did not like Hamilton's belief in a limited government.

Explanation:

The federalists, Alexander Hamilton was the Finance Minister and the anti-federalists, Thomas Jefferson was Secretary of State and they both have different views on the power of government. Alexander Hamilton, wanted a strong central government or limited government while Thomas Jefferson, wanted that power should be in the hands of state and to protect state rights instead of centralized power.

Hence, the correct answer is "Jefferson did not like Hamilton's belief in a limited government."

zavuch27 [327]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

I think it is B

Explanation:

Hamilton did not support the French Revolution. I am pretty sure he did not support the states' rights either but may be wrong.

I hope this helps. Sorry if I am wrong.

You might be interested in
Water is not wet. prove me wrong. i dare you
ohaa [14]

Answer:

what we isn't wet it makes things wet, but if water touched water it be comes wet.

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Under which category of crimes does failure to act as per one’s legal duties fall?
Yanka [14]

The crime category is called crimes of omission.

Crimes of omission is an offence that is categorized by<em> a person's failing to perform an act that is required or is seen as that person's legal duty. </em>

Some examples of crimes of omissions are child neglect, manslaughter by gross negligence and failure to disclosure terrorists acts.

Another example: a person who is aware of a dangerous situation such as a house on fire in progress, can face criminal charges for not notifying authorities.

8 0
3 years ago
When jonah sends in the box top from his cereal to receive a free dvd of a cartoon featuring one of his favorite​ characters, he
kolbaska11 [484]

Jonah is responding to a <u>free in-the-mail premium.</u>

In marketing, the free-in-the-mail premium is a type of sales promotion that requires consumers to mail one or many proof of purchase of the product, and in exchange, they have a free gift delivered to them.

4 0
4 years ago
In which of the following concepts did Jan Hus believe? A.salvation through good works B.salvation through faith C.indulgences D
rosijanka [135]
D. Predestination.
That Answer Correct! 
7 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What is securalism? ​
sineoko [7]

I've heard individuals say things like, "You have to be secular," "I am secular," etc. even in academic contexts. Then there are some who despise secularism as the ruin of this nation. Secularism is viewed as a moral value by the pro-Secularism camp. According to the anti-Secilarim camp, it is equivalent to minoritarianism.

Both parties are mistaken and misinformed.

First and foremost, we need to understand that secularism is NOT for INDIVIDUALS. For the SYSTEM, that is.

Since secularism and religious freedom are mutually exclusive, no constitution that protects religious freedom can also impose secularism on its citizens. A separation from religion is secularism. It is the system, not the individual, that is required to dissociate.

The term "System" designates the complete administrative framework, including each of its constituent and contributing parts. The System includes everything that has to do with administration, formulation and application of policy, and law and justice. These must all be unbiased toward religion. The secular discipline also applies to the political organizations that take part in the process of electing the legislative bodies. Therefore, when a political party makes the claim that it is "secular," it is attempting the age-old ruse of constructing a virtue out of a need. It cannot be anything but secular. Similar to this, a government cannot avoid being secular. The courts, bureaucracy, and legislature all operate similarly. When we refer to ourselves as a "secular nation," we mean this.

Being Secular entails being cut off from Religion. This is a requirement of the Government, not of the people who make up the Government. The same is true of the other institutions that make up the democratic system. Secularism is an institution's character, not the personality of its employees. For instance, the Prime Minister must maintain his secularity while doing his official duties, but not in his personal life. Although the members who make up a political party are allowed to follow their faith, the essence of the organization's operations must be secular. Most individuals are unaware of this.

Secularism, as a constitutional ideal, is, nevertheless, consistently violated by the political and administrative establishments, both in letter and in spirit. A secular government cannot use its policies and programs to favor or disparage any religion. However, we see that governments, both at the federal level and at the state level, flagrantly break this cardinal rule by enacting religiously-specific social assistance programs that favor certain people while excluding others. Other fundamental protections, such equality and the prohibition of discrimination based on race, religion, or other factors, are also infringed as a result. This flagrant constitutional breach is not questioned or opposed.

The canvassing of votes in the name of religion is expressly prohibited. This is what the law says:

<em>"Section 123(3) of the Act* prohibits canvassing by an electoral candidate to woo voters in the name of race, caste, religion, community and language. It also prohibits usage of religious symbols or national symbols or flag for canvassing purposes. Usage of the aforesaid are considered to be corrupt practices. The electoral candidates cannot promise any public policy which they propose to implement on being successful."</em>

<em />

[*The 'Act' refers to the Representation of the People Act 1951]

Despite the fact that this is the law, the reality during election season is the complete reverse. Why doesn't anyone challenge it? Why doesn't anyone care about it? Every day we chant hymns to secularism, yet when it comes to actual practice, we disrespect it in spirit and soul. That is the major flaw in our democratic system.

Secularism itself is not the bad guy; its improper use is.

Thank you,

Eddie

5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • mark me brainly and send me a message reques then i will let you in my zoom at3;40 and my iig and face reval
    14·1 answer
  • Folkways are norms that are seen as central to the functioning of a society and to its social life. The routine conventions of e
    6·1 answer
  • What is the official collection of all of the federal laws and associated regulations passed by Congress?
    8·1 answer
  • Suppose your friend forwards you an article claiming that beanie babies contain brown recluse spider eggs. provide at least two
    14·1 answer
  • The Supreme Court ruled in in re Gault that people that are under arrest must be read their rights by law enforcement who cannot
    8·2 answers
  • What kind of government does sudan have
    10·2 answers
  • Does Jefferson think the Louisiana territory is already inhabited? How do you know?
    13·1 answer
  • Which of the following is an example of a government making a decision using cost and benefits?
    7·1 answer
  • PLZZZZZZZZZZZZZ HELP (write in paragraph form)
    9·1 answer
  • social _______________ refers to the role of our thoughts and interpretations in social interactions.
    15·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!