Why did the historian William Leuchtenburg call FDR's New Deal reforms a "half way revolution? ОА. FDR’s reforms could only marginally help the US economy recover from the Great Depression
OB.
FDR's reforms could only marginally help the US economy recover from the Great Depression
FDR's reforms gave workers the right to organize and bargain wages in a volatile economic environment.
FDR's reforms were experimental when it came to the economy, but conservative when it came to minority issues,
OD. FDR's reforms did not do enough in terms of wealth distribution, so the poor continued to struggle to survive,
OE. FDR's reforms, while beneficial to single women, were biased against married women,

i think it would be c.

hope i'm correct

explanation:

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

athenian democracy developed around the fifth century bc in the greek city-state (known as a polis) of athens, comprising the city of athens and the surrounding territory of attica, and is often described as the first known democracy in the world. other greek cities set up democracies, most following the athenian model, but none are as well documented as athens'.

it was a political system of direct democracy, in which participating citizens voted directly on legislation and executive bills. participation was not open to all residents: to vote one had to be an adult, male citizen, i.e., not a foreign resident, a submissive or a woman, and the number of these was "probably no more than 30 percent of the total adult population."[1]

the longest-lasting democratic leader was pericles. after his death, athenian democracy was twice briefly interrupted by oligarchic revolutions towards the end of the peloponnesian war. it was modified somewhat after it was restored under eucleides; the most detailed accounts of the system are of this fourth-century modification rather than the periclean system. democracy was suppressed by the macedonians in 322 bc. the athenian institutions were later revived, but how close they were to a real democracy is debatable. solon (594 bc), cleisthenes (508/7 bc), and ephialtes (462 bc) contributed to the development of athenian democracy. cleisthenes broke up the power of the nobility by organizing citizens into ten groups based on where they lived rather than on their wealth.

hope this !