Why do governments have stricter rules about decision-making than private organizations do?

Governments are supposed to have limited power because they are meant to serve the people, not the other way around. ... Having strict rules and strict functions to each statesmen means that they are more likely to do what they are meant to instead of turning the power of the government against the people

Explanation:

Governments are supposed to have limited power because they are meant to serve the people, not the other way around. ... Having strict rules and strict functions to each statesmen means that they are more likely to do what they are meant to instead of turning the power of the government against the people.

Explanation:

the crusades are one of the most significant events in the history of europe and the middle east.   they were a series of religious wars carried out by christian crusaders from europe during the timeframe of the middle ages.   beginning in 1095 ce, the crusades saw european knights and noblemen travel to the middle east in an attempt to capture the holy land away from muslim people that had controlled the region for the previous centuries.   the term crusade means ‘cross’.   therefore, the europeans that became crusaders viewed themselves as ‘taking up the cross’.   in fact, many of the crusaders wore crosses on their clothing and armor as they made their pilgrimage to the holy land.

explanation:

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is