Is the principle "separation of powers" evident in the US Constitution?

In the series of mistakes and errors that led to the end of the Western Roman Empire, when and where might better decisions have

Flauer [41]

Answer:

When they stopped conquering people, they stopped taking slaves. Much of the rural economy was built around slavery and there was a pretty firm bias against allowing slaves to have children- the investment in raising a slave child not to mention the loss of productivity of the mother and the possible death or both mother and child during childbirth led slave owners to prohibit much breeding.

Allowing slaves to have children and form family bonds also made them more likely to revolt- humans often fight harder for the rights of their children for their own.

So, without a renewable source of slaves, it became very difficult to run farms and vineyards. Without profitable and productive agriculture, there were less taxes. With less taxes, there were less funds to do civic improvements like maintaining aqueducts and roads and support standing armies.

Emperors decided to raise taxes on everyone to make up the difference which led to the ruin of many private citizens and the marked increase in wealth of the nobility who were often exempt from many taxes (which they voted for, themselves, as senators) leaving them with the funds to buy up neighboring properties and essentially, their neighbors to work the land. Feudalism grew out of a switch from a civic or community focus to a self or family focus.

The Eastern Roman Empire maintained a strong base of taxation and a standing army for a thousand years after the fall of the West, but their economy wasn't nearly as dependent on slaves for labor. They survived by repeatedly reforming their style of government to suit the current needs without ever losing the power of the central government.

Explanation:

5 0

3 years ago

GIVING BRAINLIEST How did the Mandate Of Heaven benefit the people of China? WHO EVER GETS THIS RIGHT IM GIVING A BRAINLIEST TO

oee [108]

When a dynasty has the mandate, they were in control. if something bad happens like a flood, the dynasty loses mandate and a new dynasty takes its place.

3 0

4 years ago

Read 2 more answers

developing historical perspective at the trials, many nazis defended themselves by saying they were only following orders, what

larisa86 [58]

The German military must have made an effort to absolve itself of any possible involvement for the death of the Jews. Because they chose to follow orders and participated in mass extermination Holocaust , it is critical to refute this defense.

The German military contributed to the racial, political, and territorial goals of Nazism during World War II. The idea that the German military, or Wehrmacht, was not complicit in the Holocaust and other atrocities stemming from Nazi genocidal policy remained for a very long time after the war. This assertion is false. The German military took involvement in numerous parts of the Holocaust, including the use of forced labor, the support of Hitler, and the extermination of Jews and other groups that the Nazis targeted.

Learn more about German military here;

brainly.com/question/28008688

#SPJ4

4 0

1 year ago

How did mussolini guarantee that Fascism was the only political party by 1926?

romanna [79]

Mussolini’s road to a dictatorship took much longer than Hitler’s in 1933. Hitler was appointed chancellor on January 30th 1933. By April 1st 1933, his power was such that, after the Enabling Act, Hitler could only be seen as the dictator of Nazi Germany regardless of Hindenburg’s presidency. Mussolini’s public posturing and boasts did not guarantee loyalty in Italy – hence why it was so important for him to establish a relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. He only gained what could be described as dictatorial powers after the Lateran Treaty whereby he could guarantee loyalty from those Catholics who may well have not been supporters of the fascist state in Italy.

Mussolini took years to achieve what could be defined as a dictatorship. He achieved some semblance of power after the March on Rome in 1922 when he was appointed Prime Minister of Italy. But his government contained a mixture of men with different political beliefs – similar to Hitler’s position in January 1933.

But his time in power almost collapsed after the murder of Matteotti when great anger gripped Italy. If he had been a true dictator in 1922, then such an uproar would never have happened as his enemies and the Italian people in general would have been cowed into submission.

Mussolini started his time in power by buying support from both the working class and the industrial bosses.

The workers were promised an eight hour day while an enquiry into the profits made by the industrialists during World War One was dropped. The rich benefited from a reduction in death duties – now, under Mussolini, more of what someone had earned during their lifetime, went to their family and not the government. To get support from the Roman Catholic Church, religious education was made compulsory in all elementary schools.

These policies can be seen as an attempt to ‘buy’ support. As an example, in 1933 Hitler introduced workers holidays into Germany (similar to a bank holiday). This was very popular. He then almost immediately banned trade unions which protected workers rights. Any protests over this were banned as a result of the Enabling Act – Hitler did not bargain with anyone. Mussolini was not in a position whereby he could assert his authority and it is probable that the extent of his dictatorial powers never did equal those acquired by Hitler.

Mussolini had never intended to share power with the liberals who were in the government. He introduced a Fascist Grand Council which would decide policy for Italy without consulting the non-fascists in the government first.

In February 1923, Mussolini and the Fascist Grand Council introduced the Acerbo Law. This law changed election results. Now if one party got just 25% (or more) of the votes cast in an election, they would get66%of the seats in parliament.

When it came for Parliament to vote on the Acerbo Law, many politicians agreed to a law that would almost certainly end their political careers if they were not fascists. Why did they do this?

The gallery in the hall in which the politicians voted was filled with armed fascist thugs who had a good view of anybody who spoke out against the law. The threat was clear and real. If you voted for the law, you would be fine. If you did not, then you were certainly in danger from fascist thugs.

Mussolini did say in the spring of 1924 that “a good beating did not hurt anyone.”

5 0

4 years ago

What was one difference between geographic expansion in New England and in the Chesapeake region?

vampirchik [111]

Difference between geographic expansion in New England and in the Chesapeake region:

New England:

New Englanders as a result of rough soil had constrained cultivating so they needed to go to timber, hide, and angling.

Homesteaders in the New England settlements suffered harshly cool winters and mellow summers.

The land was level near the coastline yet turned out to be bumpy and rugged more remote inland.

The dirt was commonly rough, making cultivating troublesome.

Chesapeake region:

The Chesapeake district was, be that as it may, extremely wealthy in soil, and cultivating turned into the primary concern.

Tobacco, indigo, and rice were the central yields.

Religion in the Chesapeake district was not in any manner normal, with the exception of in a couple of zones.

The reaction expresses that pioneers in the Chesapeake were increasingly "socialized" with the Indians.

The province of Maryland was expected as an asylum for Catholics in the wake of being abused when the Catholic Church isolated from the Church of England.

3 0

4 years ago