Explanation:
In 1651, Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature – that is, our natural condition outside the authority of a political state – is ‘solitary, poore, nasty brutish, and short.’ Just over a century later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau countered that human nature is essentially good, and that we could have lived peaceful and happy lives well before the development of anything like the modern state. At first glance, then, Hobbes and Rousseau represent opposing poles in answer to one of the age-old questions of human nature: are we naturally good or evil? In fact, their actual positions are both more complicated and interesting than this stark dichotomy suggests. But why, if at all, should we even think about human nature in these terms, and what can returning to this philosophical debate tell us about how to evaluate the political world we inhabit today?
The question of whether humans are inherently good or evil might seem like a throwback to theological controversies about Original Sin, perhaps one that serious philosophers should leave aside. After all, humans are complex creatures capable of both good and evil. To come down unequivocally on one side of this debate might seem rather naïve, the mark of someone who has failed to grasp the messy reality of the human condition. Maybe so. But what Hobbes and Rousseau saw very clearly is that our judgements about the societies in which we live are greatly shaped by underlying visions of human nature and the political possibilities that these visions entail.
Answer: The Bill Is a Law
If a bill has passed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and has been approved by the President, or if a presidential veto has been overridden, the bill becomes a law and is enforced by the government.
If the bill passes by simple majority (218 of 435), the bill moves to the Senate. In the Senate, the bill is assigned to another committee and, if released, debated and voted on. Finally, a conference committee made of House and Senate members works out any differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.
To become a law the bill must be approved by both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and requires the Presidents approval. There are two different types of bills, private-bills that affect a specific individual and public-bills that affect the general public.
Sometimes, the resolution of differences between the House and Senate proposals may instead be accomplished through a conference committee. A conference committee is a temporary committee formed in relation to a specific bill; its task is to negotiate a proposal that can be agreed to by both chambers.
After both the House and Senate have approved a bill in identical form, the bill is sent to the President. If the President approves of the legislation, it is signed and becomes law. If the President takes no action for ten days while Congress is in session, the bill automatically becomes law.
In the Cold War, the United States (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) were at odds with each other because of strongly different worldviews. The USA was committed to capitalism and democratic institutions of government, whereas the USSR was committed to communism and imposed authoritarian government. Initially, the USA had atomic weapons and the USSR did not. (The US would not share that technology with the Soviets, who had been their ally in World War II.) But once the Soviets developed their own atomic weaponry, this led to a massive arms race between the superpowers. The two nations kept escalating their weapons capabilities and stockpiles. It got to the point that if the two sides did plunge into war, they would face mutually assured destruction. John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State under President Eisenhower, wanted a change from what had been the "containment policy" which the US had followed during the Truman Administration, as recommended then by American diplomat George F. Kennan. Dulles felt the containment approach put the United States in a weak position, because it only was reactive, trying to contain communist aggression when it occurred. Dulles sought to push America's policy in a more active direction; some have labeled his approach "brinkmanship." In an article in LIFE magazine in 1956, Dulles said, "The ability to get to the verge without getting into the war is the necessary art." He wasn't afraid to threaten massive retaliation against communist enemy countries as a way of intimidating them.
Eventually (after decades of the arms race and tensions) the US and USSR would pursue policies of detente, which included pledges to reduce their nuclear arsenals. The arms race and solving the arms race were constant issues affecting the Cold War.
Answer:
The Johnson-Reed Immigration Act
Explanation:
