Show how the role of the federal government was viewed by different groups at different times in the 20th century.

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:

president carter called the victims of kidnapping "victims of terrorism and anarchy" and added that the united states was not going to give in to blackmail. in the united states, they see hostage-taking as an outrage on the part of the islamist movement that violated the principle of international law on the immunity and inviolability of diplomats and their embassies.

carter refused to yield to the demands, khomeini used the situation to consolidate his power and nullify the challenges of the moderate wing of his government, headed by its president. the euphoria over the humiliation of the most powerful nation distracted the iranian people from the economic difficulties of their country. carter, in april 1980, broke diplomatic relations with iran and imposed a trade embargo, except medicine and food. iranian funds in the us they were frozen and accounted for to compensate the hostages when they were released and to pay the demands of us companies against iran.