One of the ways the great society is considered an improvement over the new deal is that it
had greater support
addressed civil rights
restricted government
would continue forever

addressed civil rights

Explanation:

One of the ways the Great Society is considered an improvement over the New Deal is that it  addressed civil rights .

Explanation:

The Great Society was a set of internal programs adopted in the United States at the initiative of President Lyndon B. Johnson in order to build a "Great Society" in which there would be no poverty. The two most important goals of the Great Society were to carry out social reforms to eradicate poverty and racial segregation. At this time, new and extremely important programs were also launched to reform education and the health care system, as well as to solve the problems of urbanization and transport. The Great Society as a whole resembled Roosevelt's New Deal, but the main difference was in the adopted programs.  

Some of the Great Society projects were initiated by John F. Kennedy, Johnson's predecessor as president. The main guarantee of Lyndon Johnson's success was his ability to convince the total success of the Democrats in the 1964 presidential election, which in turn brought a large number of liberals to Congress. While some of the programs have been curtailed or their funding has been substantially reduced, many of them, such as Medicare and Medicaid, as well as the federal education financing program, continue to operate so far.

1.the population change is near or at replacement level.

4. the birth and death rates are balanced.

6. sweden is most likely a developed country.

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