<span>The first "plan of government" that the United States operated under was a document known as the Articles of Confederation. After getting rid of the tyranny that we, as a nation, faced under British rule, we wanted to avoid a strong central figure as much as possible. This government plan was supposed to give the majority of the power to the states. This seemed like a wonderful idea to some, but unfortunately, nothing was getting done because it was too difficult to get anything done. This is why the federal government does need some power. It is important for the state, which is closer to its people, to have power because not all situations apply in all 50 states. In conclusion, it is important for federal and state government to share powers because otherwise there simply is no balance. So yeah.</span>
The Egyptians used a weird method to reduce friction by pouring water onto the sand, causing the sand to clump together and make it easier to pull along due to the reason that each individual piece of sand doesn't hold it back. They called this weird technique capillary bridges.
Speaker 1: The will of the people is what is best for society.
Speaker 2: People exchange some of their individual freedoms for protection by the government.
Speaker 3: Governments should be divided into branches that are <span>separate but equal.
</span>Speaker 4: Governments derive their powers from the consent of the <span>people.
The </span><span>Baron de Montesquieu would most likely agree with the Speaker 3, as it was Montesquieu who theorize first that a government should be divided into branches that are separated but equal (the three branches should be executive, legislative and judiciary), in order to avoid that one of the three could acquire more power than the other and as a form of control of democracy.</span>
Answer:
The press published newspapers about the acts of the Patriots fighting the British
<span>The answer is that "It punishes people for their beliefs, not just their actions".
<span>Critics of hate crimes legislation contend that it is superbly suitable to criminalize demonstrations of brutality, however not fitting to include extra disciplines for a man's thoughts or discourse. Another issue related with hate crime recommendations is the trouble of figuring out which bunches are to be "ensured.</span>
</span>
