Some historians have suggested the executive office of the president has led to a more powerful presidency, replacing policymaking functions that should rightly belong to the cabinet. according to this line of thought, the reorganization act of 1939 has given the president too much power over an entire branch of government, since most members of the executive office are appointed directly by the president without being confirmed by the senate. why might people have objected to this plan based on the constitution? check all that apply. the plan took away power belonging to the cabinet. the plan did not reorganize the branch. the plan increased the powers of the presidency the plan created less accountability to the senate the plan eliminated presidential powers.

The correct answers are A) The plan took away power belonging to the cabinet, C) the plan increased the powers of the presidency, and D) the plan created less accountability to the Senate.

Based on the Constitution, people might have objected the plan because the plan took away power belonging to the cabinet, the plan increased the powers of the presidency, and the plan created less accountability to the Senate.

The Reorganization Act of April 1939, gave the President of the U.S. the faculty of hiring more people closer to him to be part of his staff. This Act increased the power of the President. But there are specialists that consider this as a risk because the plan took away power belonging to the cabinet, increased the powers of the presidency, and created less accountability to the Senate.

im pretty sure it has something to do with the end of ww1

answer: andrew johnson

17th u.s. president

in what way were president abraham lincoln's and president andrew johnson's reconstruction plans similar? a)both reserved seats in the congress for former confederate war leaders. b)both granted voting rights to the newly freed slaves. d) both required southerners to support the thirteenth amendment to abolish

explanation: