Answer: Investors
For investors, stocks are a way to grow their money and outpace inflation over time. When you own stock in a company, you are called a shareholder because you share in the company's profits.
I agree. His motivations were not bad such as save China but in that time they did not have a stable government, so it was not good for them all.
When Chiang returned to China in 1911, he participated in a revolution that ended the Qing Manchu dynasty, which then reigned in the country. With that, it transformed China into a republic. However, for many years there was no stable government, as some feudal warlords, who dominated the provinces, fought for power.
After a period of study in the Soviet Union, Chiang returned to China in 1923. Two years later, he replaced Sun at the helm of the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party). At that time the Communists were part of the Nationalist Party, but in 1927 Chiang Kai-shek expelled them from it. Chiang also rose up against the warlords and, in 1928, established a new government. Warlords and Communists, however, continued to oppose him.
When Japan invaded China in 1937, Chiang made a temporary alliance with the communists to fight the invaders. This struggle became part of the larger World War II conflict. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, the Communists turned against Chiang again. In 1949 they defeated him and founded the People's Republic of China. Chiang Kai-shek transferred his nationalist government to the island of Taiwan, where he died on April 5, 1975.
Answer:two main steps proposal and approval
Explanation: because im doing the test right know and i got it right
Answer:
Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare that acts of the other branches of government are unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable. For example if Congress were to pass a law banning newspapers from printing information about certain political matters, courts would have the authority to rule that this law violates the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. State courts also have the power to strike down their own state’s laws based on the state or federal constitutions.
Today, we take judicial review for granted. In fact, it is one of the main characteristics of government in the United States. On an almost daily basis, court decisions come down from around the country striking down state and federal rules as being unconstitutional. Some of the topics of these laws in recent times include same sex marriage bans, voter identification laws, gun restrictions, government surveillance programs and restrictions on abortion.
Other countries have also gotten in on the concept of judicial review. A Romanian court recently ruled that a law granting immunity to lawmakers and banning certain types of speech against public officials was unconstitutional. Greek courts have ruled that certain wage cuts for public employees are unconstitutional. The legal system of the European Union specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Union the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is also afforded to the courts of Canada, Japan, India and other countries. Clearly, the world trend is in favor of giving courts the power to review the acts of the other branches of government.
However, it was not always so. In fact, the idea that the courts have the power to strike down laws duly passed by the legislature is not much older than is the United States. In the civil law system, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. In the (British) common law system, on which American law is based, judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. However, as Britain has no Constitution, the principle that a court could strike down a law as being unconstitutional was not relevant in Britain. Moreover, even to this day, Britain has an attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy. Therefore, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike down legislation.
Explanation:
nationalparalegal.edu /JudicialReview.aspx
I think that the US did have the right to prevent the spread of communism. Any nation that turned communist (except for Yugoslavia) turned out to be because the Soviets arranged it to threaten the US. For example; the Soviets used Cuba to place missiles in the Americas, and China used Vietnam to threaten NATO outposts in the South China Sea. Any nation that was communist was clearly aligned with the USSR, and determined to threaten the US.
