1.
the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates.
Environment can be defined as a sum total of all the living and non-living elements and their effects that influence human life.
Divides the powers into Branches - Separation of powers
Divides the power between central and state govern. - Federalism
Each Branch of govern. - Checks and Balances
Answer:
It was very realistic
Explanation:
So the movie was based on the flight that occured on 9/11, and the flight wsa United 93. I'm not really sure of all the details of the real event, but I did see a lot of truths. One thing that stood out to me was a conspiracy that had been floating around for awhile.
So there were orders to shoot the plane down to prevent it from flying into the White House, but the plane "crashed" into the field.
Here's the thing, with this big situation, don't you think that if fighter piltowere given orders to shoot down a plane that was heading for the White HOuse, they would have done it. They say that passengers on the plane overtook the coockpit, but in my opinion, I think it was shot down. It makes sense.
Hope this helps!!
Answer: Reagan did not stop communism (communism never existed and its ideology is still here....there are many communist parties all over the world which is quite surprising and incredible) but practiced very well Kennan´s strategy of "containment". Communism itself underwent serious crises (1956 Hungary, 1968 Czechoslovakia, 80s in Poland) ...in 1980s there was a lot of dissatisfaction in the Eastern block, anti-communist opposition was growing and USSR became aware that reforms are necessary. Gorbatchev (from 1985) was really aware that the communist regimes are no longer sustainable. There were various factors.
Explanation: communist regimes exhausted themselves, nothing worked....economically and ideologically as well. That was something which helped very much to Reagan.
If the system were being designed today, such a design probably would be rejected as unfair. Part of the problem is that the Framers were dealing with a less lopsided distribution. The ratio between most populous state and least populous stat in 1789 was about 7 to 1. Today, the ratio between California and Wyoming population is 50 to 1.
But the Senate made sense to the Framers in 1787 for a particular reason. At that time, all 13 former colonies were like independent nations or independent countries. They could mint their own coins, print their own money, and conduct international diplomacy directly with other nations. There are lots of reasons this was unsatisfactory. It produced economic chaos and a poor prospect of winning future wars, but it did give each state the status of a country.
Now, imagine you’re a small state like New Hampshire. Right now, you completely control your own destiny. Why do you want to join a Union unless you’re guaranteed a strong voice in that Union? Now, all the arguments that people still have about the Electoral College (“The big states would push all the little states around!”) actually do apply.
It is the Senate that does a superb job… if anything TOO good a job… of protecting “small states rights.” You can argue that it is an unfair system, and it probably is… but the point is this: In 1787, the question of how to get small states like New Hampshire to join this new Union, which was after all seemed like a risky experiment, was a big problem.
It’s really for political reasons, not absolute fairness, that the Senate was created in such a way as to give equal representation to each state. It seemed necessary in 1787. But there were lots of things that could not be foreseen, such as the rise of a strong national culture and the eventually lopsided ratios between the most populous and least populous states.
Now, let me address the “House of Representatives” question. How can the Senate be based on 2-senators-per-state while the House is based on population?
