directions: when we use the word yranny\ (teer-a-nee) we usually mean a government with an absolute ruler like a king, or a dictator. the writers of the constitution were determined not to let such a person get control of the new american government. however, there are other kinds of tyranny that caused concern, where one group might have too much power over another. with a partner, give an example how each kind of tyranny listed below could be harmful to the people of the united states.

questions:
1. tyranny of individual states over the central government: what if states had the power to ignore a federal tax law they did not like?
this could be a problem because:

2. tyranny of the chief executive: what if there was no legislative branch and the president had the power to both make laws and enforce laws?
this could be a problem because:

3. tyranny of the president over the judicial branch: what if the president could fire justices of the supreme court if he didnt like a ruling they made?
this could be a problem because:

4. tyranny of big states over little states: what if new york had a lot more members than rhode island in both the senate and the house of representatives?
this could be a problem because:

Question

directions: when we use the word 	yranny\ (teer-a-nee) we usually mean a government with an absolute ruler like a king, or a dictator. the writers of the constitution were determined not to let such a person get control of the new american government. however, there are other kinds of tyranny that caused concern, where one group might have too much power over another. with a partner, give an example how each kind of tyranny listed below could be harmful to the people of the united states.

questions:
1. tyranny of individual states over the central government: what if states had the power to ignore a federal tax law they did not like?
   this could be a problem because:

2. tyranny of the chief executive: what if there was no legislative branch and the president had the power to both make laws and enforce laws?
   this could be a problem because:

3. tyranny of the president over the judicial branch: what if the president could fire justices of the supreme court if he didnt like a ruling they made?
   this could be a problem because:

4. tyranny of big states over little states: what if new york had a lot more members than rhode island in both the senate and the house of representatives?
   this could be a problem because:

Accepted Answer

### 1. Tyranny of individual states over the central government
# Brief Explanations:
If states can ignore federal tax laws, the central government can't fund essential programs (like defense, infrastructure) uniformly. States might act in self - interest, disrupting national economic stability and unity. For example, a state avoiding tax for a project could lead to unequal development and lack of national cohesion.
# Answer:
The central government would lack the funds to carry out national - level programs (e.g., defense, interstate infrastructure). States acting in their own self - interest would disrupt economic stability and national unity, leading to unequal development and a breakdown of a unified national economic and political system.

### 2. Tyranny of the Chief Executive
# Brief Explanations:
Without a legislative branch, the President could make and enforce laws without checks. He could create laws that benefit himself or a small group, suppress opposition, and violate citizens' rights (e.g., passing laws to silence critics). There would be no one to ensure laws are fair or constitutional.
# Answer:
The President could create and enforce laws unilaterally, leading to laws that serve his own interests (or a small group's) rather than the public good. There would be no check on his power, so he could violate citizens' rights (e.g., freedom of speech, due process) and act as a dictator, with no mechanism to ensure laws are fair or constitutional.

### 3. Tyranny of the President over the Judicial branch
# Brief Explanations:
If the President can fire Supreme Court justices for unfavorable rulings, justices would be pressured to rule in his favor. The judiciary, which is supposed to be independent, would become a tool of the President. This would destroy the system of checks and balances, and the President could act without fear of judicial review (e.g., violating the Constitution with no legal pushback).
# Answer:
Supreme Court justices would be pressured to rule in the President's favor to keep their jobs, destroying judicial independence. The system of checks and balances would collapse, allowing the President to act unconstitutionally (e.g., violating civil rights) with no fear of judicial review.

### 4. Tyranny of big states over little states
# Brief Explanations:
If big states like New York have far more representatives, little states like Rhode Island would have no say in law - making. Laws would be made to benefit big states (e.g., more funding for big - state projects, laws favoring their industries), ignoring the needs and interests of small states. This would lead to unequal representation and unfair governance, as small states would be dominated by big states.
# Answer:
Small states (e.g., Rhode Island) would have no meaningful say in law - making. Laws would be crafted to benefit big states (e.g., New York), ignoring the interests and needs of small states. This would result in unequal representation, unfair governance, and the domination of small states by big states in the legislative process.

Sovi.AI - AI Math Tutor

QUESTION IMAGE

Question

Explanation:

1. Tyranny of individual states over the central government

Answer:

2. Tyranny of the Chief Executive