More ideas were able to be made like house electronics for example: the washer, a dishwasher, the lightbulb and many more, oh and also AC current which we still us to this day because it is safer and that is how the Tesla coil works
Answer:
World-systems analysis is a mode of analysis that aims to transcend the structures of knowledge inherited from the 19th century, especially the definition of capitalism, the divisions within the social sciences, and those between the social sciences and history
Explanation:
"World-system" refers to the inter-regional and transnational division of labor, which divides the world into core countries, semi-periphery countries, and the periphery countries. Core countries focus on higher skill, capital-intensive production, and the rest of the world focuses on low-skill, labor-intensive production and extraction of raw materials. This constantly reinforces the dominance of the core countries. Nonetheless, the system has dynamic characteristics, in part as a result of revolutions in transport technology, and individual states can gain or lose their core (semi-periphery, periphery) status over time. This structure is unified by the division of labour. It is a world-economy rooted in a capitalist economy. For a time, certain countries become the world hegemon; during the last few centuries, as the world-system has extended geographically and intensified economically, this status has passed from the Netherlands, to the United Kingdom and (most recently) to the United States.
World-systems theory has been examined by many political theorists and sociologists to explain the reasons for the rise and fall of states, income inequality, social unrest, and imperialism.
- Part of the US Constitution that covers the process for ratification of the Constitution — Article VII
Article Seven describes how U.S. states may ratify the Constitution, including how many (nine) must ratify it to make it valid.
- System where government power is divided between national and state (local) governments — Federal system
The United States functions according to a system of governance called federalism, which means that the White House (national government) shares power with smaller units like state, district, and municipal governments. States actually have their own Constitutions, which tend to be more specific than the national one. While Washington controls foreign, defense, and monetary policy (among others) over the whole country, it delegates to state & local governments everything which has to do with police departments, schools, driver’s licenses, and parking tickets for example.
- People that were against the ratification of the Constitution. They felt the national government had too much authority and that it would come to abuse its power. They also disliked the fact there was no Bill of Rights to state the rights that citizens had and to work to protect those rights. — Antifederalists
Antifederalists preferred the previous 1777 document serving as a constitution, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, because it gave state governments more power. A leading Antifederalist figure among the Founding Fathers was Patrick Henry.
- The Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, during the first session of the Congress for the new Constitution. They asked that they ratify now and amend the Constitution later. They agreed to the compromise and ratified. — Massachusetts Compromise
The Massachusetts Compromise is important because it guarantees that amendments may be added to the Constitution.
- People that were supporters or “For” the ratification of the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation — Federalists
Federalists also existed as early as the United States' creation by the Founding Fathers. A prominent example is John Adams, second president of the U.S. They however lost influence at the turn of the 19th century with the election of Thomas Jefferson.
The subject of the Louisiana laws upheld by Plessy v. Ferguson was "<span>separate rail facilities," since the case was about whether or not the policy of "separate but equal" facilities was constitutional. </span>
