In which country did American foreign policy and military involvement during the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations (1961-1973) display a steady increase in presidential power?

The suitability of a more direct democracy in the U.S. is subjective, balancing increased citizen involvement with potential challenges, making it a complex matter open to debate.

Whether the U.S. government would be better as a more direct democracy is a complex question with diverse opinions. While direct democracy allows for greater citizen involvement and decision-making, it also presents challenges.

Pros:

Enhanced Citizen Participation: Direct democracy enables citizens to have a more direct influence on policies and laws through initiatives and referendums.

Accountability: Elected officials may be held more directly accountable to the people's will.

Responsive to Public Opinion: Policies may better reflect the immediate preferences of the majority.

Cons:

Complexity: Direct democracy can be impractical for a large and diverse country like the U.S., as it requires citizens to be well-informed on numerous complex issues.

Potential for Tyranny of the Majority: It can lead to the marginalization of minority groups or their interests.

Lack of Expertise: Citizens may not have the expertise needed to make informed decisions on all matters.

In summary, the effectiveness of a more direct democracy in the U.S. depends on various factors, including the size and diversity of the nation, the ability of citizens to stay informed, and mechanisms to protect minority rights.

Some argue that a mixed system, with representative democracy combined with elements of direct democracy, strikes a balance between citizen participation and effective governance.

for such more question on direct democracy

brainly.com/question/750769

#SPJ2

Answer:

I don't know...call me crazy, but I don't think this would be such a bad idea (at least sometime in the future.)  With the advent of the internet, there really is no reason why people can't have more input on legislation.  Remember, congressmen act as representatives of the people for logistical reasons.  Were voting allowed via internet, mail, or permanent polling places, the logistical roadblocks are reduced.

This country has an annoying quality where senators and representatives are elected and then inject their own personality into their voting.  They are supposed to represent the people of their district.  If 60% of the people in their district feel a certain way about an issue, why is the congressman/woman allowed to vote a different way?  Why do their personal beliefs really matter at all?  They are supposed to be voting the way their district wants regardless of what they personally believe.

I know, I know, things can be horribly complicated and the average person can't possibly understand all the issues they are voting on, but last I checked their is no intelligence requirement to be in the government...many people in governement now are dumb as a box of rocks.  They don't have to be smart to be elected, they have to be personable and have good advisors working in the background.

Imagine being able to directly vote on education issues, warfare issues, and being able to prioritize budget items.  Instead of blaming the morons in congress we would only be able to blame ourselves when things went horribly wrong.  Of course, some form of standing governement would still be needed for a lot of reasons.

Again, I know the technology is not hot enough right now to provide the secruity that would be needed, etc, but it won't be long...

Which part do you need help with?

Answer:

Bernardo de Galvez controlled Eastern Seaboard and led the American by the British blockade.

Explanation:

• In the year 1776 when the revolutionary war began Bernardo de Gálvez was the governor of the Spanish colony of Louisiana.
• He helped the american solders in a big way.He circumvented the British navy blockade by using the Mississippi river and provided arms ammunition and food to the United States army.
• Bernardo de Gálvez and his forces were responsible for the capture of Pensacola.

Explanation:

Sacco and Vanzetti, in full Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, defendants in a controversial murder trial in Massachusetts, U.S. (1921–27), that resulted in their executions.

The trial resulted from the murders in South Braintree, Massachusetts, on April 15, 1920, of F.A. Parmenter, paymaster of a shoe factory, and Alessandro Berardelli, the guard accompanying him, in order to secure the payroll that they were carrying. Socialists and radicals protested the men’s innocence. Many people felt that the trial had been less than fair and that the defendants had been convicted for their radical anarchist beliefs rather than for the crime for which they had been tried.