Answer:
This can include acquiring land or regulating immigration.
Explanation:
Implied powers, on the other hand, are implied through the Constitution and can be debated. You can't look at inherent and implied powers without defining “expressed powers” too. These are the 17 powers that are clearly stated in the Constitution.
Answer:
Yes, I believe that he had more experiences to share that helped him form his arguments. Along with that, he was a primary source for what happened to slaves.
I hope that helps!! :)
Bye bye have a great day <3
The construction of the British canal system was key in the industrialization of these territories. However, in comparison to the canals up north of the UK, there were some canals that were not connected to the system in the south. The purpose of them was to serve the local industries in England and Wales. However, these were largely unutilized due to the preference from people towards other methods of transportation.
<span>The close ties between the church and the state in Massachusetts
did not help the government, but rather hurt the government. Although the Church
and the government had close ties with each other but still it was not right
for the church to have a say in the government. Church would always want the
members of their religion in the government and that would have a negative
impact on the government and people as a whole. General people’s ideas would
not find importance if the government was controlled by the church. </span>
Answer: The answer is complex and not straightforward.
Explanation:
The article relates to Churchill and Roosevelt, so is probably dated from World War 2.
Given this and the reference to the use of force by aggressive nations it is reasonable to assume that this refers to the Axis nations and their allies, primarily Germany, Japan and Italy.
What is being referred to is reflected in the policies applied to Germany and Japan at the end of World War 2. (Italy had already switched sides and deposed Mussolini).
In the post war agreements drawn up, Germany and Japan were largely demilitarised with strict control over their armed forces. In the case of West Germany their limited armed forces existed only within the context of NATO to prevent any aggressive use as was evidenced at the beginning of World War 2.
In both instances these countries were not allowed to develop or possess nuclear weapons.
Until such time as there is a global disarmament treaty, as referred to in the article, then countries which are deemed "aggressive", the losers in a conflict, by others, the winners, have arms controls imposed.
Of course this does not and has not stopped the proliferation of weapons, and conflicts throughout the world since 1945, including the aggressive policies of countries such as the UK and the USA.
