Answer this question… A Doctor Who has the right to vote for elected officials of the government
Noah Webster believed that the soul of a republic was the equality of its people. Noah Webster was known as a school master who helped write a dictionary and rewrote the Bible so that the common man could understand it.
If regular citizens refused to assist slave catchers, it could disrupt the operation of the slave system by hindering the capture and return of escaped slaves. This resistance could potentially undermine the effectiveness of slave catchers and could lead to increased public awareness and debate about the issue of slavery.
The Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, were not considered citizens of the United States. The decision was based on the belief that African Americans could not be citizens under the Constitution because they were not considered equal to white citizens.
Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the U.S. Although Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens by birthright, residents of Puerto Rico pay no federal income tax, nor can they vote in presidential General elections much like the residents of Washington, DC. Residents can vote in the primaries and send delegates to both the Democrat and Republican conventions. It would require an amendment to the US Constitution to give Puerto Rico votes in the electoral college or they could choose to become the 51st state. Puerto Ricans who reside in any other state can vote for president.
In the Roman Republic, women had limited social rights compared to men. They were not allowed to participate in politics, hold public office, or vote. However, women could own property, inherit wealth, and engage in business transactions.
Rome had many classes of people and none of them could be considered the main "group". You could loosely say that the two main groups of the Roman republic were the citizens and the non-citizens. If you are asking about the governmental groups in the senate, they were the populists and the optimates.Rome had many classes of people and none of them could be considered the main "group". You could loosely say that the two main groups of the Roman republic were the citizens and the non-citizens. If you are asking about the governmental groups in the senate, they were the populists and the optimates.Rome had many classes of people and none of them could be considered the main "group". You could loosely say that the two main groups of the Roman republic were the citizens and the non-citizens. If you are asking about the governmental groups in the senate, they were the populists and the optimates.Rome had many classes of people and none of them could be considered the main "group". You could loosely say that the two main groups of the Roman republic were the citizens and the non-citizens. If you are asking about the governmental groups in the senate, they were the populists and the optimates.Rome had many classes of people and none of them could be considered the main "group". You could loosely say that the two main groups of the Roman republic were the citizens and the non-citizens. If you are asking about the governmental groups in the senate, they were the populists and the optimates.Rome had many classes of people and none of them could be considered the main "group". You could loosely say that the two main groups of the Roman republic were the citizens and the non-citizens. If you are asking about the governmental groups in the senate, they were the populists and the optimates.Rome had many classes of people and none of them could be considered the main "group". You could loosely say that the two main groups of the Roman republic were the citizens and the non-citizens. If you are asking about the governmental groups in the senate, they were the populists and the optimates.Rome had many classes of people and none of them could be considered the main "group". You could loosely say that the two main groups of the Roman republic were the citizens and the non-citizens. If you are asking about the governmental groups in the senate, they were the populists and the optimates.Rome had many classes of people and none of them could be considered the main "group". You could loosely say that the two main groups of the Roman republic were the citizens and the non-citizens. If you are asking about the governmental groups in the senate, they were the populists and the optimates.
All Romans citizens could vote. The Roman social orders were: patricians, equites and plebeians.
Yes they can!
women, immigrants,and slaves, because they could not become citizens
women, immigrants,and slaves, because they could not become citizens
The males of Rome were either Patrician or Plebeian. The Patricians were aristocrats who allegedly could trace their ancestry back to mythical origins and the first Senate established by Romulus . The Plebeians, on the other hand, were the common folk. Initially, only Patricians were eligible for public office and the classes were forbidden from intermarriage.
The patricians had the right to vote, as did the plebeians and equites and all the Roman citizens of the first class. Rome was a republic and all citizens could vote, depending on their class of citizenship. As far as becoming consul, anyone could run for the office providing he had completed the other offices leading up to consulship. In the later republic there was a law that one consul had to be a plebeian.
If you are assigned to interview the president of Mauritania the following questions will help you to determine whether or not democracy exists there. You could ask about how elections are carried out. Another question would be able the rights of the citizens of the country. Also ask about the military and how they are used.
Could be University Board of Elections
While some could argue that the US has not kept the republic because of undue influence in government from the wealthy or military officials, the US has kept its republic through granting all citizens the right to vote and participate in government.
Ah, the Roman Republic, what a fascinating time in history. One of the pros was the shared power among different branches of government, promoting balance and fairness. However, as the Republic grew, conflicts arose, leading to power struggles and eventually the downfall of this noble system. Remember, even in challenges, there is always beauty to be found.
Limiting the frequency of elections could lead to increased political stability, as longer terms may reduce the volatility associated with frequent electoral cycles. However, it might also result in decreased accountability, as elected officials would have more time to distance themselves from voter concerns without the pressure of impending elections. Additionally, voter engagement could diminish, as citizens may feel less involved in the political process when elections are less frequent. Overall, the balance between stability and accountability would be a critical consideration.