<u>Beliefs of both Federalists and anti-federalists:</u>
After the proposal of the new Constitution in the United States in 1787, the process of ratification became a prime subjects of argument as there arose two side to debate on it. Those who were in favour of the ratification and activation of new Constitution were termed as Federalists whereas those who were not thinking so, called the anti-federalists. Here are the prime beliefs of both the sides.
The Prime beliefs of both sides on the new Constitution's ratification
Belief of Federalists:
- The proposed Constitution was important for the survival and further development of the nation.
- A strong Government was necessary to excel after the previous failed Confederations.
Belief of Non-Federalists:
- The powers of the government, mentioned in the constitution was specifically granted and prohibited for doing more than that.
- The powers were separated into three groups rather than giving the complete authority an individual to control tyranny.
- The Constitution provided the system of checks and balances which wasn't required as all the branches were able to take care of their checks and balances.
- The Constitution provided addendum powers to the federal courts at the expense of the domestic courts which was unfair.
Answer:
Glasnost and Perestroika
Explanation:
Glasnost was the policy implemented by Gorbachev that was focused less on government control of media. This allowed for more freedom of the press within the Soviet Union.
Perestroika was focused on restructuring the Soviet Union's economy and political system. This was focused on less government control and allowed for more individual choice. These steps resulted in the decreased power of the Soviet government in the life of their citizens.
Latinos have historically favored the Democratic Party primarily because of the following (this list is not designed to be exhaustive or the final word on the subject, rather this answer is a jumping off point for analysis and review and debate):
1. Large voting blocks of perennial migrant Latino labor from Texas to California - think of the AFL-CIO coming into power in the 30's at the height of the Depression which was then legitimized by FDR as an authoritative voice of the previously voiceless - Farm Laborers as opposed to Farm Owners (Owner being predominantly conservative and Republican) and this came about during the 4 term and decade plus spanning Presidential Administration of FDR (Democrat) and then also the protection and support to migrant farm labor groups of the 60's via the policies of both JFK (Democrat) and LBJ (Democrat) - Presidents who unabashedly supported the inclusion of marginalized people and the ideal that all are created equal and refused to endorse or uphold the segregation of various races and cultures in the United States.
2. Catholicism. JFK (Democrat) was the first Catholic President of the United States. Latinos are OVERWHELMINGLY Catholic. JFK blazed a trail through the WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) Elite that had traditionally lead, ran, and administered the powerful offices of our great nation while mainly excluding everyone else who wasn't in the "WASP club". He appointed exceedingly well qualified but heretofore traditionally marginalized individuals who while being mainly ignored in "Mainstream" America, were however simultaneously dynamic Leaders in their own communities. JFK placed never before seen colors, races, religions, and creeds into positions of power and influence and VISIBILITY. The groups and communities he championed included but were not limited to blacks, asians, latinos, women, liberals, jews, and catholics and JFK placed them into every level of the nation's administration from Ambassadors, to Federal Judges, to Cabinet Ministers, to Federal Department Heads, and the list goes on. He didn't just invite them to the party - he took them "three times 'round the dance floor" - these people were not "Tokens" they were "Trailblazers" and that made all the difference in the world - he wasn't trying to appease anyone; he was championing what it meant to be AMERICAN by producing American leaders who could and then did lead all faiths, creeds, and colors in their secular communities to which JFK appointed them. Catholicism has traditionally practiced inclusion, rather than exclusion, as a basic tenet of faith. Socially, Catholics (and especially Irish Catholics) were dismissed and often viewed with contempt by the WASP establishment - for instance only a very few (a minority of minorites so to speak) catholics, jews, and differing ethnic groups were allowed into the Ivy Leagues which then put them on the correct trajectory for state, national, and international leadership in business, academia, government, medicine, and law but they would never have enough "outsiders" to make a serious play towards leadership of the leadership - limited inclusion is a way of controlling groups that are excluded - basically the WASP establishment could pick leaders for the groups they excluded and by doing so CONTROL ALL GROUPS. In point of fact the University of Notre Dame in Indiana became the way to provide an Ivy League education and IVY LEAGUE STATUS to the children of wealthy Catholics.) It's important to remember that in the 19 aughts, teens, and twenties it was not uncommon to have help wanted signs put up that would state: No Coloreds or Irish need apply. JFK was born into EXTRAORDINARY privilege: wealth, status, looks, intellect, charisma but he was always looked down upon by people who did not possess what he did - they did this because of their prejudice against Catholics and Irish Americans. When he championed people who were excluded because of heritage or faith, he did so from a place of PERSONAL understanding that was informed by HIS heritage and HIS Catholicism. He called Americans to share his view, his exuberance, his confidence, his INCLUSION OF ALL AMERICANS into the fantastic tapestry he was weaving - JFK called to American's BEST NATURES and they answered in staggering numbers - the price for admission to this party was that they had to leave old hates and prejudices outside - no room in his "(Democratic)Party" for haters. They, in turn, passed it onto their children. And those children, have now passed it onto their children, and so on. Now Latinos are Democrats because it is tied up with their faith, their heritage, their culture, and their inclusion. In other words, it is now a part of their IDENTITY and it informs who they want to be and who they will become. And finally, will it make their parents and grandparents proud?
One of the hard things about hunting down Osama was he was in a different country. When you are a wanted criminal or terrorist and you go to another country there’s a lot of legal stuff that goes on for trying to bring them back. One of those struggles is the country’s decision to actually hand over the criminal. They may have happened but in that concern I’m not quite sure of. There’s also the fact that he was probably hiding for those ten years but hey ended up finding Osama with a satellite. Hope this helps!
