During the Progressive Era, political leaders instituted policies designed to empower average Americans and curtail the power of large business interests. In the course of US history, the pendulum has swung between increasing government regulation of big business and leaving it free to grow as it will. In your lifetime, what decisions has the government made about increasing or decreasing this type of regulation? What have been the effects of those decisions? Compare the issues and outcomes to those of the early twentieth century decisions to regulate big business in the Progressive Era. You might also consider whether the media serve a similar "muckraking" role in causing this pendulum to swing one way or another.

there is no chart here so no one can answer this.

1) checks and balances- this idea is implemented in the constitution to ensure that no one branch of the federal government gains too much power. for example, the legislative branch(congress) can approve a bill that will then be sent to the executive branch (president). if the president does not like the bill or thinks that it violates the rights of citizens, he/she can veto the bill. vetoing the bill stops the bill from becoming a law. this check on power ensures that congress makes laws that do not violate the rights of citizens.

2) anti-federalists do not want to ratify the constitution unless it includes a bill of rights. the anti-federalists are worried that the constitution gives too much power to the federal government. having a strong central government caused problems when the us was still part of great britain. this is why the anti-federalists are fearful of this type of system.

3) federalists want a new constitution passed because it will fix america's weak political structure. before the us constitution is implemented, the constitution being used is known as the articles of confederation. this constitution has an extremely weak central government, allowing for disunity among the states.

can't do the whole thing, hope this

islamic religious leaders have traditionally been people who, as part of the clerisy, mosque, or government, performed a prominent role within their community or nation. however, in the modern contexts of muslims minorities in non-muslim countries as well as secularised muslim states like turkey, indonesia and bangladesh, religious leadership may take a variety of non-formal shapes.

compared to religious leaders/clerics of the other abrahamic faiths, islamic clergy are said to resemble rabbis and not priests. unlike catholic priests they do not "serve as intermediaries between mankind and god",[1] have "process of ordination",[2] or "sacramental functions",[1] but instead serve as "exemplars, teachers, judges, and community leaders," providing religious rules to the pious on "even the most minor and private" matters.[1]