Acommon critique of putting too much power in the executive branch is that doing so can lead to infringement of the constitution. a critique of putting too little power in the executive branch is that doing so can create a dysfunctional central government. which critique do you find more persuasive and why?

I found that  : "putting too little power in the executive branch is that doing so can create a dysfunctional central government." is a more persuasive critique.

Explanation:

When operating a large country like united states, it is almost impossible to make each states are taken care of unless we give a certain level of autonomy for each states to govern themselves.

This ability to govern creates a possibilities that each states could rebel and do things that make it hard for the central government to achieve its goal.

To prevent this from happening, it is important for the central government to have a complete authority over the state.So when the state use its autonomy to deviate, the central government could easily take a corrective measure and bring the state on track.

the correct answer is "c": the pillars proclaimed his regret at the bloodshed at the battle of kalinga and his conversion to buddhism.

the kalinga war is considered as one of the largest battles in the history of india. it was fought between the between the maurya empire, which ruled the lands of what is now known as india at the time, and the independent feudal kingdom of kalinga.

the army of maurya empire, led by its king ashoka, fought a prolonged war against kalinga. the war ended around 262 bce with the victory of the maurya empire. it is believed that ashoka, after having witnessed the loss of many lives during this war, felt deep responsibility and eventually converted into buddhism.

hello it is $0 for apex