It gave the government the power to try to raise farm prices by setting production quotas and paying farmers to plant less food.- Seemed ridiculous to hungry Americans to pay farmers to not provide food and only property owning farmers actually saw the benefits of the Act (particularly affected African Americans poorly).- Supreme Court struck down the Act in U.S. vs Butler due to direct government intervention in economy
Let me handle your first question -- always good to do one question at a time here. :-)
Prior to President Theodore Roosevelt, those who preceded him in federal government had tended to side with industry leaders, expecting laborers to fall in line and do the work for the good of the companies. In 1902, when there was a particularly tense strike by coal workers, Roosevelt invited both sides (labor leaders and management leaders) to the White House to negotiate. This was an example of the way he saw the role of government leadership as "steward" to the nation, mediating on behalf of everyone's interests, not just the interests of a powerful small group. His "Square Deal" policies were aimed at making things fair and square for the general public. An example of this would be how much land was set aside under his administration as national forests, national parks, national monuments, etc. He was seeking to protect the use of the land for all Americans' interests, rather than letting corporations tear into any land or forest they wanted in order to grab natural resources.
Answer:
yes i do
Explanation:
Proponents of MAD as part of the US and USSR strategic doctrine believed that nuclear war could best be prevented if neither side could expect to survive a full-scale nuclear exchange as a functioning state.
One such doctrine was “mutual assured destruction” (MAD), the notion that the purpose of nuclear strategy was to create a stable world in which two opponents would realize that neither could hope to attack the other successfully and that in any war both would suffer effective obliteration.