Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
Answer: yes and no. For the most part yes as it allows the government to pick and choose what is and isn't recognized as a local currency. A good example of fiat money is gold.
Between the late 1940s and the early 1990s, the Cold War era drastically changed Europe. The nations of Europe would have undoubtedly altered over that time, but without the consequences and influence of the Cold War, the changes would not have been as significant. Following the devastation of World War Two, the US provided billions of dollars in economic assistance that helped revive Western Europe under the Marshall plan. However, since countries who took Marshall assistance promised to share economic plans and utilize the cash to buy American goods, the USA's true goal was to solidify its dominance in Europe. Additionally, the rising popularity of communism in Western Europe was weakened by this increased riches. For instance, in France, the communist party had an estimated 1 million members by 1949.
But since the Soviet Union prevented countries in its zone of influence from accepting Marshall Plan help, the Marshall Plan exposed the first serious rift in Europe. Although they provided comparable assistance, it was insufficient, and Eastern Europe's economy started to deteriorate as a result. The two superpowers also designated their respective territories. Both Hungary and Czechoslovakia organized rallies and uprisings against communist government, and in each instance, the USSR ruthlessly suppressed them. It's conceivable that the UN would have adopted a more direct strategy, similar to what was seen in Korea, if the tension and threat of the cold war hadn't existed. However, in Europe, such an intervention was improbable.
Germany was split into the east (the GDR) and west (the FRG) for the duration of the Cold War, and some Germans still sense this division even now, over 40 years after reunification. The Cold War was such a huge and dramatic struggle that it is possible to argue that it influenced how the 21st century looks now. The impacts of it have not only been felt in Europe but also across the world over the past 20 years. Everything was impacted by the Cold War.
Answer:
Japan gained influence in nations such as Manchuria and Korea.
Explanation:
No not really it was sad though :\
