What impact was affirmative action designed to have

It created quotas for minority admissions or hiring.

answer: a parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance of a state where the executive derives its democratic legitimacy from its ability to command the confidence of the legislature, typically a parliament, and is also held accountable to that parliament. in a parliamentary system, the head of state is usually a person distinct from the head of government. this is in contrast to a presidential system, where the head of state often is also the head of government and, most importantly, the executive does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature.

countries with parliamentary democracies may be constitutional monarchies, where a monarch is the head of state while the head of government is almost always a member of parliament (such as the united kingdom, denmark, sweden, and japan), or parliamentary republics, where a mostly ceremonial president is the head of state while the head of government is regularly from the legislature (such as ireland, germany, india, and italy). in a few parliamentary republics, such as botswana, south africa, and suriname, among some others, the head of government is also head of state, but is elected by and is answerable to parliament. in bicameral parliaments, the head of government is generally, though not always, a member of the lower house.

parliamentarianism is the dominant form of government in europe, with 32 of its 50 sovereign states being parliamentarian. it is also common in the caribbean, being the form of government of 10 of its 13 island states, and in oceania. elsewhere in the world, parliamentary countries are less common, but they are distributed through all continents, most often in former colonies of the british empire that subscribe to a particular brand of parliamentarianism known as the westminster system.

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