0
The directive that establishes a single comprehensive national incident management system is the National Response Framework (NRF). The NRF provides a unified approach to emergency management, ensuring that all levels of government—federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial—can coordinate effectively during incidents. It emphasizes the importance of collaboration and communication among various stakeholders to enhance overall response capabilities.
What else can I help you with?
What is the Obligation and Securities issued by the Philippine Government?
gevernment bonds
Is the only way politics can affect gevernment is through elections?
False
Which head of gevernment operations is based in the Pentagon?
The Secretary of Defense heads the government operation based in the Pentagon.
What did president Hoover expand more than previous presidents?
the economic role of the federal gevernment
Why might the gevernment freeze assets?
Governments may freeze assets to prevent individuals or entities from accessing or transferring funds that are suspected to be linked to illegal activities, such as money laundering, terrorism financing, or fraud. This action helps maintain the integrity of the financial system and allows authorities to investigate potential wrongdoing. Additionally, freezing assets can serve as a tool for enforcing sanctions against foreign governments or individuals involved in activities that threaten national security or violate international laws.
What event led to the practice of gevernment assisting the ill and the neglected?
The development of government assistance for the ill and neglected can be traced back to the industrial revolution, which caused rapid urbanization and the rise of social issues such as poverty, disease, and homelessness. The inadequate response from private charities and the overwhelming needs of the population prompted governments to intervene. This shift was further reinforced by the social reform movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, which advocated for social welfare policies and the establishment of public health systems to support vulnerable populations. Such changes laid the groundwork for modern social safety nets and public health initiatives.
Impact of martin Luther on Christianity?
He created "Lutheranism", a sect of Christianity which challenged the Church (Christianity was effectively only Catholic at this time), Papal infallibility, and expressed the view that people, as individuals, were able to seek salvation through Christ without the mediation of a preist (ie confession).
Why are liberated countries so unstable?
People often obey a gevernment out of habit. Obviously habit is not something a new government has on it's side. People hate a government which hurts them. Because people had time to adapt to old laws (murder illegal? work as potato farmer rather than assasin!) they are more hurt by old governments than new ones. Whenever a country is 'liberated' either by external or internal forces, the liberators make all kinds of promises to all kinds of people. Some of these promises at least will be broken, causing members of the new ruling class to turn against eachother. And often new governments lose the services of the most experienced police and propaganda men who worked for the old regime and our thus less able to defend themselves than established ones.
When can the govern form a new govern?
Answer, sort of.Short answer: Whenever.Longer answer: There are several ways a government can be overthrown, some legal within the particular governments framework, some not. First let us look at the republican democracy in the United States.The US Constitution provides a few clues. First, the enitire House of Representatives comes up for election every two years, it is possible though unlikely that all of the incumbent members fail to get reelected and a new House is formed. What happens more often is some members do not seek reelection, some fail and some succeed, and the composition of the House changes. In the Senate, one third of the members are elected every two years (remember Senators serve a six year term). This causes a more gradual shift in the composition. Dramatic examples of what can happen can be seen the the 2006 elections where the Democrats took control of both houses and thus all committee seats (research how the legislative branches of the US gov't work to see how important that is) and in the 1994(?) campaign where the opposite occured. The US executive (President and Vice President) are elected every four years and this change can arguably have more impact than the legislative elections. The constitution also provides for impeachment proceedings, which allows the populace to remove the executive, albeit by proxy through the House and Senate.Many of the democratic nations use the Westminster system of government, wherin the sovereign (if one exists) or other head of state calls for a parliament to convene. The members of parliament are elected by the populace, the party in the majority then get to form the government. If no majority exists a coalition must be formed. This system can see a much higher rate of change as elections are not on a fixed schedule.Then we have the non-democratic nations. Dictatorships, monarchies, and single-party rule. Peaceful change in these nations is much less likely as the rulers often do not rule with the consent of the governed. This I think is the heart of your question. When does it become appropriate for a populace to forcibly change their government? There is no clear cut answer for this, no real benchmark where a person can say "Yep, those are freedomn fighters, not terrorists (or whatever)." This is a question that requires much reading and discussion to form something like an answer. Start out with the Federalist Papers. Ask yourself why did some in the colonial US feel it was appropriate to use arms and violence to establish their own gevernment. Why did others feel that was wrong? Also, read up on the Jeffersonian idea of how the US should be governed, compare that with what Hamilton had to say. and compare both to how it actually turned out. Branch out from there.
When can the governed form a new government?
Answer, sort of.Short answer: Whenever.Longer answer: There are several ways a government can be overthrown, some legal within the particular governments framework, some not. First let us look at the republican democracy in the United States.The US constitution provides a few clues. First, the enitire House of Representatives comes up for election every two years, it is possible though unlikely that all of the incumbent members fail to get reelected and a new House is formed. What happens more often is some members do not seek reelection, some fail and some succeed, and the composition of the House changes. In the Senate, one third of the members are elected every two years (remember Senators serve a six year term). This causes a more gradual shift in the composition. Dramatic examples of what can happen can be seen the the 2006 elections where the Democrats took control of both houses and thus all committee seats (research how the legislative branches of the US gov't work to see how important that is) and in the 1994(?) campaign where the opposite occured. The US executive (President and Vice President) are elected every four years and this change can arguably have more impact than the legislative elections. The constitution also provides for impeachment proceedings, which allows the populace to remove the executive, albeit by proxy through the House and Senate.Many of the democratic nations use the Westminster system of government, wherin the sovereign (if one exists) or other head of state calls for a parliament to convene. The members of parliament are elected by the populace, the party in the majority then get to form the government. If no majority exists a coalition must be formed. This system can see a much higher rate of change as elections are not on a fixed schedule.Then we have the non-democratic nations. Dictatorships, monarchies, and single-party rule. Peaceful change in these nations is much less likely as the rulers often do not rule with the consent of the governed. This I think is the heart of your question. When does it become appropriate for a populace to forcibly change their government? There is no clear cut answer for this, no real benchmark where a person can say "Yep, those are freedomn fighters, not terrorists (or whatever)." This is a question that requires much reading and discussion to form something like an answer. Start out with the Federalist Papers. Ask yourself why did some in the colonial US feel it was appropriate to use arms and violence to establish their own gevernment. Why did others feel that was wrong? Also, read up on the Jeffersonian idea of how the US should be governed, compare that with what Hamilton had to say. and compare both to how it actually turned out. Branch out from there.
