1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Vikentia [17]
3 years ago
8

What economic decision made consumer goods so difficult to get in the Soviet Union until the late 1980s?

History
1 answer:
9966 [12]3 years ago
4 0
The economic decision that made consumer goods so difficult to get in the Soviet Union until the late 1980s was: <span>The emphasis on heavy industry
During that period, Soviet Union focus its economic forces to produce various heavy equipment in order to win the Space Race against united states. Because of this, the smaller industries receive no subsidies from the government, causing the price of any imported goods became heavily inflated.</span>
You might be interested in
The declaration of independence cites specific reasons for separating from british rule. What are these specific reasons?
bulgar [2K]

Answer: The answer is:

Natural rights such as life, liberty, and property

Explanation:

<em>(Extract from the declaration of Independence)</em>

<em>".....all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."</em>

<em>  </em>The colonies saw a  tyrannical authority, many actions made them believe that their rights as British Citizens had been slowly eroded. Some of these actions by King George III included:

Rejecting legislation proposed by the colonies

Maintaining a strong military presence under his direct command

Destroying the colonists' right to self-rule.

Suppressing the colonial rebellion through violence and military means

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
According to the map, in 1850 which region of the country had areas of 90 or more inhabitants per square mile?
MrMuchimi

Answer:

C i think

Explanation:

6 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
10 POINTS
netineya [11]

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

6 0
3 years ago
Can someone please answer these questions for me
telo118 [61]
6. Conservatives
8. Nancy Hart
9. Kettle Creek
10.Austin Dabney

1.militia
2.loyalists
3.radicals
4.Savannah
5.whigs
7.Elijah Clarke
6 0
3 years ago
19. What event demonstrated to England the United States' determination to fight for and maintain its freedom?
Daniel [21]

Answer:

war of 1812.

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What was the religion and political dynasty in peru?
    14·1 answer
  • Factories and mills in the early nineteenth century employed woman and children as well as men. Which statements are true about
    5·2 answers
  • How old is harriet tubman?
    7·1 answer
  • What were the arguments of the iconoclasm controversy?
    10·1 answer
  • Jefferson believed in reducing the power and size of goverment , or a philosophy called?
    8·2 answers
  • Urban Geographers classify cities into three types. Which is NOT one of their classifications? Question 7 options: Central Place
    10·1 answer
  • PLZ HELP WILL GIVE BRAIN BEING TIMED
    8·1 answer
  • The anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust developed most prominently in -
    10·2 answers
  • HELPPP!!!<br> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<br> -Book // Wrapping up a little bit of trouble //
    8·2 answers
  • "para sa susunod na pangulo"​
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!