Answer:
American revolution and the domestic instability that followed prompted a call for a new type of government with a constitution to gurantee liberty. The constitution republic has endured longer than any in human history.
Explanation:
Hope it is helpful for you
please follow me
Checks and balances exist to keep the executive, legislative, and judicial branches equal. Some examples of checks and balances in the Constitution include:
- The president's power to veto a bill (executive check on the legislative branch)
- The House's power to impeach (legislative check on <em>both</em> the executive branch <em>and</em> the judicial branch)
- <em>Both</em> houses of Congress must pass each bill (legislative self-check since this branch is bicameral with both the House and the Senate)
- Judicial review (judicial check on <em>both</em> the legislative branch <em>and</em> the executive branch)
- The president's pardon power (executive check on the judicial branch)
These are just a few. Let me know if you have any questions.
Answer:
"Trans-Saharan trade requires travel across the Sahara between sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa. While existing from prehistoric times, the peak of trade extended from the 8th century until the early 17th century. The Sahara once had a very different environment. In Libya and Algeria, from at least 7000 BC, there was pastoralism, the herding of sheep, goats, large settlements, and pottery. Cattle were introduced to the Central Sahara from 4000 to 3500 BC. Remarkable rock paintings, in places which are currently very dry, portray vegetation, and animal presence rather different from modern expectations."
Hope That Helped :)
My answer will be somewhat anecdotal. I have read some things about the role of women in progressive movements (especially during the early 20th century). But I don't recall any succintly useful references.
Women were very active in promoting prohibition, child labor laws, public education, government welfare and other progressive government policies. It has been posited that they were instrumental in providing public support for New Deal programs (of which Social Security is the major descendant). Women leaders believed that the government could be a tool to promote social welfare. A common hypothesis is that they effectively influenced women voters to support progressive government programs.
It might therefore be reasonable to believe that without women votes, the welfare state would be much smaller. There might be no Federal education oversight. Schools would be managed entirely at the state and local level (if not privately). Welfare needs would be handled primarily by families, churches and other voluntary associations. I even wonder whether government would have so aggressively pursued the war on drugs.
To attribute the rise of welfarism in America solely to women would be overly simplistic. However, I think that the votes of women were a major contributing factor.
Some might extol the rise of progressive policies in America as good. I on the other hand, have made no secret of my disdain for those policies. I believe that government-run education is detrimental to liberty and provides poor educations (the majority of success being attributed to involved families and less to public spending). I believe that government managed welfare has unwittingly (though some claim intentionally) damaged families since the need for family reliance has been reduced. At the same time, private provision for welfare needs has reduced (which I believe, while not perfect, tend to be better managed). And the war on drugs has been a disaster. While I am no proponent of illicit drug use, government efforts to eradicate drug use have only spawned a lucrative (and violent) black market while criminalizing non-violent people (who often become violent and more useless than ever in the dysfunctional prison system).
My general critique of progressivism via the strong arm of government is that it almost always results in adverse unintended consequences.
Incident to women's suffrage, the standing of women in our society has improved. I view this as a positive development. The ills that I have described are mostly attributable to problems inherent in politics. Ambitious politicians have taken advantage of the attitudes of voters (leveraging not only gender attitudes, but race, class and so on) to foist upon us ever increasingly progressive government control.
I believe that it would be erroneous to attribute better treatment of women to women's suffrage. It may be true that the same public attitudes that led to their right to vote have led to their better treatment. Indeed, given the general positive attitude to voting, it is hard to imagine that better overall treatment could have been achieved while forbidding women the right to vote. As long as voting is considered a fundamental right, women would have been relegated to second class status if denied that right. However, to assign causality is wrong in my opinion.
In summary, more equal treatment of women has been an improvement to our society. At the same time, the voting rights that came with their equal treatment have unfortunately helped to promote progressive government policies that have been damaging to our society. I applaude equal rights to women but condemn political institutions that took advantage of this major change to voting demographics.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights <span>(1948) and the founding of Amnesty International (1961) are both associated with efforts to
recognize and protect the "</span><span>(2) dignity of individuals"</span>
