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
Zielflug [23.3K]
3 years ago
11

When can the People alter or abolish a government? What does that mean?

History
1 answer:
lina2011 [118]3 years ago
4 0

When the term reign is past

You might be interested in
What made Standard Oil a horizontal integration monopoly?
valina [46]
<span>They controlled everything that was related with oil extraction, refinement, generation, transportation, deals, and could, in this way, direct the costs and deals since they had no restriction. There are a few things that made Standard Oil a flat coordination imposing business model, yet all in all, it was the way that they purchased up various methods for creation.</span>
4 0
3 years ago
What are some ways in which presidents are able to act on their own
Vika [28.1K]
Acting President of the United States is an individual who legitimately exercises the powers and duties of the office of President of the United States even though that person does not hold the office in their own right. There is an established order in which officials of the United States federal government may be called upon to take on presidential responsibilities if the incumbentpresident becomes incapacitated, dies, resigns, or is removed from office (by impeachment by the House of Representatives and subsequent convictionby the Senate) during their four-year term of office, or, if a president has not been chosen before Inauguration Day, or if the president-elect has failed to qualify by that date.

Acting President of 
the United StatesExecutive branch of the U.S. Government
Executive Office of the PresidentStatusActing Head of State
Acting Head of GovernmentMember ofCabinet
Domestic Policy Council
National Economic Council
National Security CouncilTerm lengthSituationalConstituting instrumentUnited States Constitution

Presidential succession is referred to multiple times in the U.S. Constitution – Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, as well as the Twentieth Amendment and Twenty-fifth Amendment. The Vice President is the only officeholder named in the Constitution as a presidential successor. The Article II succession clause authorizes Congress to designate which federal officeholders would accede to the presidency in the event the vice president were unavailable to do so, which it has done on three occasions. The current Presidential Succession Act was adopted in 1947, and last revised in 2006. The succession order is as follows: Vice President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, President pro tempore of the Senate, and then the eligible heads of federal executive departments who form the president's Cabinet, beginning with the 

7 0
3 years ago
What was one MODERN practice of the 1920’s?
Thepotemich [5.8K]

segrogation. "The 1920s was a decade of change, when many Americans owned cars, radios, and .... Yet segregation, or separation of the races, continued to be practiced in North ... Modern civil rights laws for minorities were still many years away."- NC Pedia

4 0
3 years ago
Read the excerpt from "The Treasure of Lemon Brown." The old man looked out, then beckoned frantically for Greg to follow him. F
iris [78.8K]
Lemons green tea and green tea green green tea tea green tea and
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
List the factors which brought The first world War?​
yanalaym [24]

1. Friends don’t let friends fight alone

A tangled web of strong political alliances among nations meant that most great powers felt obliged to help their partners once war was declared.

After the murder of an Austrian Archduke by Serbian assassins, Austria-Hungary prepared for war against Serbia, which was allied with Russia.

Once Russia mobilized, Austria-Hungary’s ally, Germany, declared war on both Russia and Russia’s ally, France. Great Britain and its empire, sympathetic to France, declared war on Germany (Canada was not consulted).

Alliances originally intended as defensive pacts ended up looking threatening to outsiders. This perilous network of allegiances is an accepted part of all narratives about the First World War. German historian Andreas Hilgruber was one of many who showed how dangerous and costly all of these alliances were.

2. Armed to the teeth

Europe in 1914 was armed to the teeth. Vast fleets of warships were being constructed, conscription was implemented in most of the great powers to allow large armies to be kept in reserve, weapons and ammunition were stockpiled, and detailed war plans were made.

The impact of the proliferation of the instruments of war as a cause of the outbreak of the conflict was highlighted by David Stevenson’s Armaments and the Coming of War (1996). A large army spoiling for a fight may well seek one out.

3. Capitalist imperialism

During the First World War, Vladimir Lenin, the father of the Soviet Union, wrote an essay entitled Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), in which he laid out the foundation of his own philosophy of communism.

He believed that the war was the product of capitalist financial monopolies within states, which created national rivalries and led the great powers into a destructive conflict over access to raw materials and undeveloped markets.

Others since have blamed imperialism itself and commercial interests.

4. War on a tight schedule

A.J.P. Taylor, one of the 20th century’s great historians, argued in War by Timetable (1969) that in 1914, thanks to relatively new transportation (railroad) and communications (telegraph and telephone) technologies, every European power believed that the ability to mobilize their armies faster than their neighbours would by itself deter war.

Every power drafted elaborate mobilization timetables so that they could outrace their potential opponents. When the crisis of 1914 occurred, none of the leaders really wanted war, according to Taylor, but each felt they had to mobilize faster than the others or lose the advantage.

They became the victims of their own logistical preparations, and Europe slid unwillingly but relentlessly into war. Barbara Tuchman’s book The Guns of August (1962) similarly identified the dangers of technology in causing conflicts to escalate rapidly.

5. Blame Germany

In the Treaty of Versailles that officially ended the war, Germany was made to accept the blame for causing the conflict, and after that German governments spent decades denying their sole responsibility.

They convinced many people, but after the Second World War, German historian Fritz Fischer looked into previously-classified archives for the first time. Fischer concluded in his book German War Aims in the First World War (1961) that Imperial Germany had deliberately provoked a general war as part of a policy of conquest much like that undertaken by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany 20 years later.

Fischer’s conclusions remain controversial to this day.

6. No, blame Britain

The idea that Britain caused the war was the live grenade that firebrand historian Niall Ferguson lobbed into the debate when he wrote The Pity of War (1999), though Paul Schroeder had put forward a similar argument earlier.

Ferguson claimed that not only did British statesmen encourage France and Russia to oppose Germany, but that Britain’s own intervention turned a regional European brawl into a global war.

The British may not have directly started it, according to Ferguson, but they were liable for greatly expanding the scope of the war and making it drag on as long as it did.

7. People being people

Canadian historian Margaret Macmillan has published a major book, The War That Ended Peace (2013), which presents a synthesis of many different factors: alliances and power politics; reckless diplomacy; ethnic nationalism; and, most of all, the personal character and relationships of the almost uncountable number of historical figures who had a hand in the coming of war.

Her work helps to highlight the fact that for all the great and powerful forces that seemed to grind the world inexorably into war in 1914, everything ultimately came down to the beliefs, prejudices, rivalries, and schemes of a great array of personalities and people.

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • The text below was written in 1918:
    10·1 answer
  • How are Taoism and Buddhism similar?
    10·2 answers
  • In which of the following regions did General MacArthur lead American forces in World War II?
    14·2 answers
  • The assembly line was a system through which items were mass produced in a ______ flow.
    5·2 answers
  • What were four factors that led to german defeat in the battle of britain
    5·1 answer
  • Write a diary entry as a Cherokee traveling to Indian Territory on the Trail of Tears.
    8·1 answer
  • After world war 2, the communist party led by
    15·2 answers
  • Which feature of the United States Constitution traditionally gives the states authority over public education?
    14·1 answer
  • The number of representatives from each state is determined by what? What determines the number of senators per state?
    5·1 answer
  • Refer to the two passages.
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!