____________________________________________________
Answer:
Your answer would be "an enemy."
____________________________________________________
By the end of 1936, the supreme court had proven itself an enemy of Roosevelt's new deal.
____________________________________________________
Roosevelt's new deal:
Roosevelt's new deal was an Economic program consisting of programs, regulations, financial reforms, and public workshops made by President Roosevelt to give relief to the citizens because of the Great Depression.
____________________________________________________
Explanation:
The reason why "an enemy" would be your answer is because the Supreme Court was against what President Roosevelt was doing. They believed that what President Roosevelt was doing was giving the powers that the federal government had and giving them to the state governments. They didn't like this because the wanted to federal government to have more power than the state governments, but President Roosevelt was trying to do otherwise. The federal government said that this was unconstitutional, and that president Roosevelt was being unconstitutional. They criticized President Roosevelt a lot for "not helping the poor" enough. They said that the New Deal was just another way of saying "Share our wealth." They didn't want to share their wealth with others, they wanted to keep the wealth to themselves. Roosevelt wanted to avoid confrontation with the Supreme Court, but he couldn't do that. He just had to stick to his plan on making the country back together again after a huge tragedy that changed the whole nation. This showed that the Supreme Court was against the new deal, and was the enemy.
____________________________________________________
-Julie
BABA BLACK SHEEP HAVE YOU ANY WOOL but the answer is a
Answer:
Hoy en día, por causa del coronavirus, en muchos países del mundo se están soslayando gran cantidad de derechos civiles con el objetivo de preservar el correcto funcionamiento del sistema sanitario pero sin tener en consideración las cuestiones relativas al ejercicio de esos derechos por parte de los ciudadanos.
Así, en muchos países del mundo la libertad de circulación se ha visto gravemente cercenada, violando incluso preceptos constitucionales que impiden el cercenamiento del derecho a circular y trabajar. Por ejemplo, en Argentina la cuarentena ha hecho que millones de personas no hayan podido trabajar durante mas de dos meses, llevando a la quiebra a muchas pequeñas empresas y elevando notoriamente el desempleo.
Por otra parte, los hospitales han entrado en un estado de saturación, y las autoridades están seleccionando los casos a ser atendidos, dejando de lado cuestiones consideradas menores o no inminentes. Esto es absolutamente violatorio del derecho a la salud, garantizado por gran cantidad de tratados internacionales de derechos humanos.
Incluso, en muchos países han habido detenciones policiales arbitrarias por circulación considerada ilegal, lo cual es contrario a los regímenes de derecho penal ya que se detiene y enjuicia a personas por delitos no legislados.
Como puede verse, es necesario un fuerte control sobre los gobiernos, para que los derechos mencionados sean respetados y no se vulneren las garantías de las que gozan los ciudadanos.
Answer: Consuls are like the one who oppose the dictatorship so they advocate for their citizens to make conditions better in their country.
But dictators are rulers with total power over a country and its citizens so they basically control over everything production, the economy, and laws. So the consuls duties are fighting to make conditions better for the citizens of the dictatorship.
Explanation:
Well I can't fully answer this question I could at least give a brief helpful comparison.
The Roman idea of Citizenship facilitated political stability through Roman territories by "uniting" it's conquered people, since many of these people were treated with a relatively large amount of respect and were given rights that they appreciated.
