Answer:
Fighting in northern France stalled and both sides attempted to outflank the other.
Explanation:
This is all I can find.
There are many theories to power, be they liberal, socialist or otherwise. Many have been developed over centuries of thought, which pick apart the very nature of our society and world order. But of all the theories that I’ve come across, one sticks out more than any other, and it is the reason I hold such strong free-market/anti-state views. It’s called Public Choice theory, but don’t ask me why, because it seems to explain why any one but ’the public’ makes choices today.
Public Choice theory is modern, having only really taken off during the 1960’s, but I believe it grants a very realistic and worrying view of Britain’s power structure, and exposes many very deep scars which socialism and Keynesianism unintentionally inflicted on our country. It was heavily developed by the US economist James Buchanan, who won the 1986 Nobel Memorial Prize for his work, and who advised Margaret Thatcher through the Institute for Economic Affairs during the late 1970′s.
Just like capitalism, Public Choice theory is based on two simple assumptions about human nature. Firstly, that humans are principally self-interested. That’s not to say we’re selfish, which is somewhat more immoral, but rather that we will always aim to fulfil our wants and desires, economic or otherwise. Secondly, that humans are rational; when presented with a series of options, we will select whichever makes us the most happy for the least cost. Rational Choice theory, as it is called, has come under substantial intellectual attack in the past, and I don’t personally believe that all humans act completely rationally all the time, but as a model for human behaviour, I’d say it provides a pretty good analysis.
Answer:
Legislative—Makes the laws, Executive—Carries out the laws, Judicial—Evaluates the laws
Explanation:
Checks and Balances was designed to keep each branch from assuming too much power. Presidential power is checked and balanced in many ways. While he can veto various bills and keep them from becoming laws, he can be overridden by a 2/3 vote in both houses. SO if the Congress feels like the President is over stepping his bounds then they can in turn overrule him. The Supreme Court is also in the mix in that if they deem a law to be unconstitutional then they can rule it so and the law is no more. Presidents can influence Supreme Courts by whom they nominate for open positions (or in the case of one President, attempt to add more judges to the Court). However, after the nomination is made and the Senate approves and confirms them then they are free. The only way a Judge can be removed is they are found to be doing something illegal, deemed incompetent and unable to continue doing their job, resign, or die. This allows judges to "operate outside the realm of politics." The idea is that they can focus and not worry about politics and we can assume that decisions will be made free from political influences and bribery.
What is in common with Mongols, White Huns, and the Mughals as well was that all of them were persecuting Buddhists along their conquests on either Europe or Asiatic soil. None of the mentioned civilizations were particularly fond of the buddhistic teachings.
