Answer: The Constitution has been changed by basic legislation by Congress, actions taken by the President, key decisions of the Supreme Court, the activities of political parties, and ect.
Explanation:
Answer:
Civil disobedience is a refusal to obey authority orders or government laws aimed at enforcing a change in policy or some aspect of the political system. The broken law itself may be considered invalid or immoral, or the crime could be a way of pointing out an injustice or other cause. It usually refers to non-violent and passive methods of crime, and in resisting violence this is the disobedient's justification for breaking the law on the land of conscience.
It is a form of protest or resistance that highlights the cause of the disobedient and causes some disturbance, trouble, or waste to the authorities. It is a symbolic act rather than an opposition to the political system and the law as a whole, and the disobedient often hopes to set a moral example by accepting his punishment for breaking the law. By publicly challenging the authorities and drawing his case to the attention of his fellow citizens, his aim is to push the government into action. Some campaigners call civil disobedience a universal philosophy for changing society, while others see it as a tactic to use when there are no legitimate ways to act. In that case, morality underpins the protesters' power, in their absence of political, legal, or economic power.
For more than a decade after its passage, the Sherman Act was invoked only rarely against industrial monopolies, and then not successfully, chiefly because of narrow judicial interpretations of what constitutes trade or commerce among states. When it was first passed, the Sherman Antitrust Act was largely ineffective at stopping industrial monopolies. Courts at the time tended to hold a very narrow view of what constituted “trade or commerce among states,” and most companies were not held liable under the act. For more than a decade after its passage, the Sherman Antitrust Act was invoked only rarely against industrial monopolies, and then not successfully. Ironically, its only effective use for a number of years was against labor unions, which were held by the courts to be illegal combinations.
I'm guessing you're talking about World War II?
In Great Britain, the short answer is that it's an island. It hadn't been somewhat successfully attacked since 1263. I'm talking about by foot, not by air. A lot of this gave the Brits a sense of patriotism and morale. (It's also why the event of Dunkirk was so important). It also deterred Hitler during the Battle for Britain. Here's a good example, the Germans would keep losing aircraft with each bombing raid over Great Britain, and though the Brits would lose planes it would be less compared to their enemies. This is because Great Britain was able to salvage materials from their lost aircraft, unlike the Germans. I believe Hitler got bored and began focusing his attention from Great Britain to the USSR about two weeks before the Brits would be forced to surrender.
The Soviet Union was a different story. Although the country was the largest in the world, they were no match for Germany's brutal army in the beginning. Hitler began his betrayal of Russia in June and planned to have his troops housed in major cities during the cold winters. However, because of Mussolini's failure to capture Greece, some troops were spared down south making the trek into Soviet territory slower. German battalions weren't able to reach their goal by the beginning of the Russian winter. And just like Napoleon, Hitler had made a grievous error. This is when the Russians began turning the tables. Since the battlegrounds were in more familiar places, the Soviets were in their natural setting. The Germans, on the other hand, were ill-equipped. They still were in their summer uniforms (a weird green-grey) and the Russians were in white to blend in with the snow. Stalin also used the Scortched-Earth strategy where the Russian troops burned down farms and other things that could aid the Germans. German supply roots were cut off as well.
Germany prepared for a world war long before everyone else did. In addition to building up his army, Hitler expanded railways and roads all across the country for an easy access to move thousands of troops from one side of the country to another. Of course, at the time he said it was for civilians so the League of Nations didn't bat an eye. Joining the army was largely encouraged through the Hitler Youth (Hitler- Jugend). Basically, it entailed that young boys will be battle ready by the time they were of age. Young girls were promoted to have many children and keep up with housekeeping in <span>the <span>Bund Deutscher Mädel</span>.</span> Everything anyone did was to better Germany.
So, yeah! I'll add some stuff if something comes to mind later. Cheers!
The statement that describes the distinction between British and French rule in Africa is D. France used direct rule, while Britain used indirect rule.
It should be noted that the main difference between the way the French and the British ruled African countries was that while the French used direct rule, the British used indirect rule.
The indirect rule implies a form of government whereby the governed people have certain legal, administrative, and other powers. While the British still have certain powers over the people they ruled, the French were direct in their approach.
Read related link on:
brainly.com/question/25555071
