Answer:
Shabbat starts Friday sunset and ends on Saturday sunset
Explanation:
Federalists believed in a strong central government, checks and balances, and the ratification of the Constitution.
Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists
In the context of American history, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two political factions that emerged in the late 18th century during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike the Anti-Federalists, who opposed the Constitution, the Federalists believed in a strong central government with sufficient powers to maintain order and protect the rights of the people.
Three Key Beliefs of the Federalists:
Centralized Power: The Federalists advocated for a strong federal government that could effectively govern the entire nation.
Checks and Balances: They believed in a system of checks and balances that would prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful.
Ratification of the Constitution: The Federalists played a crucial role in convincing the states to ratify the Constitution, which they believed would provide a framework for a stable and prosperous nation.
Learn more about the topic of Federalists here:
#SPJ6
The Federalists believed that America needs separate executive powers for enforcing federal laws and implementing foreign policy.
Further Explanation:
They appreciated the presidency powers and wanted powerless executive. Federalist members were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison. They highlighted the weakness of the Confederation of the state government. They were of the view of the powerless executive. The superpower America needs the president who has separate executive powers for enforcing federal laws and implementing foreign policy.
The British monarch has limitless powers and the American presidency had limited powers which are checked by the other two branches of the government. President would be accountable to the Congress as well as to the people. They argued that the Constitution does not require the Bill of Rights. Anti-Federalists criticized and analysis the presidency.
They feared the danger and effects of the presidential form of government. They believe that if more powers are given to the President it will lead to the monarchy. They were of the view that the government will be unresponsive to the requirements of localities. The Constitution can limit the powers of the states.
Learn more:
1. Who was the winning general for the north in the civil war?
2. Under new imperialism, Europe did not need large numbers of people to control territories because of
Answer Details:
Grade: High School
Topic: Power
Subject: Social Science
Keywords: Powerless executive, separate executive powers, foreign policy, bill of rights, accountable.
mystery plays
morality plays
morality plays, because I said so.
b. evidence; viewpoints
c. viewpoints; reasoning
d. reasoning; evidence
One of the arguments that Douglass and Greeley had about making abolition the aim of the war was that the slaves would fight for their freedom if given the chance. They more than anyone were the ones who should be given the opportunity to fight for their freedom. When the Emancipation Act was passed, Blacks poured in and enlisted in the Union. Many fought hard despite prejudice from White officers and soldiers. They proved their worth and help contribute to the North’s victory.
Answer:
Systematic sampling
Explanation:
Systematic sampling -
It is the sampling method , where the sample is selected from a huge lot according to some random starting point , but have a fixed periodic interval , is referred to as systematic sampling.
The calculation is done by dividing the complete population with the desired sample size.
Hence , from the given scenario of the question,
The correct term is systematic sampling.
(B) Foot-in-the-door phenomenon
(C) Fundamental attribution errors
(D) Frustration-aggression principle
Answer: the correct answer is B Foot-in-the-door phenomenon
Explanation:
Foot-in-the-door (FITD) phenomenon is a compliance tactic that aims at getting a person to agree to a large request by having them agree to a modest request first.
The principle involved is that a small agreement creates a bond between the requester and the requestee. Even though the requestee may only have agreed to a trivial request out of politeness, this forms a relationship which – when the requestee attempts to justify the decision to themselves – may be mistaken for a real affinity with the requester, or an interest in the subject of the request. When a future request is made, the requestee might feel obliged to act concurrently with the earlier one.