Answer:
Legalism in Chinese Philosophy
First published Wed Dec 10, 2014; substantive revision Fri Nov 16, 2018
Legalism is a popular—albeit quite inaccurate—designation of an intellectual current that gained considerable popularity in the latter half of the Warring States period (Zhanguo, 453–221 BCE). Legalists were political realists who sought to attain a “rich state and a powerful army” and to ensure domestic stability in an age marked by intense inter- and intra-state competition. They believed that human beings—commoners and elites alike—will forever remain selfish and covetous of riches and fame, and one should not expect them to behave morally. Rather, a viable sociopolitical system should allow individuals to pursue their selfish interests exclusively in ways that benefit the state, viz. agriculture and warfare. Parallel to this, a proper administrative system should allow officials to benefit from ranks and emoluments, but also prevent them from subverting the ruler’s power. Both systems are unconcerned with individual morality of the rulers and the ruled; rather they should be based on impersonal norms and standards: laws, administrative regulations, clearly defined rules of promotion and demotion, and the like.
Legalist thinkers contributed greatly to the formation of China’s empire both on the theoretical level and as political practitioners; and many of their ideas continued to be employed throughout China’s history. Yet their derisive views of moralizing discourse of their rivals, their haughty stance toward fellow intellectuals, and their pronouncedly anti-ministerial rhetoric all gained them immense dislike among the imperial literati. From China’s second imperial dynasty, the Han (206/202 BCE–220 CE) on, the prestige of Legalism declined; only a few texts associated with this current survived intact; and even in the modern period, notwithstanding sporadic outbursts of interest in Legalism, this current has not received adequate scholarly attention.
Explanation:
sana po maka tulong
There were more weaknesses than strengths under the Articles of Confederation. The lack of power given to the Continental Congress strangled the federal government. The Articles gave Congress the power to pass laws but no power to enforce those laws. If a state did not support a federal law, that state could simply ignore it. Congress had no power to levy taxes or regulate trade. Without a federal court system or executive leader, there would be no way to enforce these laws, either. Amending the Articles of Confederation would also require a unanimous decision, which would be extremely difficult.
"<span>(1) status of slavery in the territories and states" is the issue that is reflected in these headlines, and is the main issue that was a problem leading up to the Civil War. </span>
The correct answer is "A and D". As regards A, the closing down of American factories in post-industrial age has diminished the number of factory workers living in the united states and thus have decreased the ability of workers to form unions that reach a critical mass. As regards B, the most important act is the Taft-Hartley Act (1947) which managed to restrict the activities and rights of union labours.