What was the main reason that athens and sparta fought the peloponnesian war? sparta wanted to overthrow the athenian oligarchy. athens wanted to become the most powerful city-state in greece. sparta and its allies felt threatened by athens’s growing power. athens wanted to control the biggest navy in ancient greece.

Explanation:

After the Greek union of Athens and Sparta crushed the Persian intruders, Athens and her partners shaped a different coalition, called the Delian League, to store and raise up armed forces to free Greek provinces in Asia Minor that were still under Persian guideline. As pioneer of the Delian League, Athens got amazing, and other Greek urban communities started to get some distance from Athens. Corinth particularly was exceptionally hostile to Athens, and obviously, Sparta and Athens were never companions; they just collaborated against a shared adversary, Persia. Sparta developed as the pioneer of an enemy of Athens collusion, called the Peloponnesian League. In the long run, the Delian League and the Peloponnesian League did battle against one another, and that is the short form of how the Peloponnesian War began. I would state the principle reason the war began was on the grounds that one side needed to reign in the developing may of the opposite side; Sparta and her partners in the south versus Athens and her partners in the north.

b.   jim crow laws were enacted in northern states.

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