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
siniylev [52]
3 years ago
9

What are the tools of fiscal policy?

History
2 answers:
astra-53 [7]3 years ago
7 0
There are two main types of fiscal policy<span>: expansionary and contractionary. Expansionary </span>fiscal policy<span>, designed to stimulate the economy, is most often used during a recession, times of high unemployment or other low periods of the business cycle. It entails the government spending more money, lowering taxes, or both. can i get brainlest

</span>
Reika [66]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

Government spending and taxation

Explanation:

https://quizlet.com/131658511/chapter-18-macro-hw-questions-flash-cards/

You might be interested in
What was controversial about the election of 2000
sertanlavr [38]
Florida Disarrayed the voting Count led to the controversial victory of George W. Bush

The supreme court halted the recount in the state of Florida ( back then, Florida's Governor was George Bush's Brother), and thereby deciding the election for George Bush

It just smelled incredibly Fishy.

<span />
6 0
4 years ago
In 1954, what did Governor Umstead’s school commission overwhelmingly conclude about the desegregation of schools?
julsineya [31]

Answer:

It was unacceptable

Explanation:

Did the quiz trust me

3 0
3 years ago
How did the reign of terror go against the principles of the French Revolution ?
Dennis_Churaev [7]

Answer:

A period of violence during the French Revolution incited by conflict between two rival political factions, the Girondins and the Jacobins, and marked by mass executions of “the enemies of the revolution.” The death toll ranged in the tens of thousands, with 16,594 executed by guillotine

Explanation:

Hope this helps

7 0
3 years ago
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
Describe the relationship between a boycott and a repeal
salantis [7]
A boycott is when the people openly abandon something, like a boycott on overpriced video games. A repeal, however, is where a product is taken away from the people, not by the people's choice.
3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What was the main reason imperial nations built large naval forces?
    15·2 answers
  • How did the production of penicillin change during World War 2?
    15·1 answer
  • What attracted chinese women to buddhism?
    7·1 answer
  • As for the City of New London, Justice Zarella and other skeptics turned out to be right. The NLDC’s flawed development plan fel
    6·2 answers
  • How did Qin Shihuangdi improve trade with China?
    8·1 answer
  • The Minoans were best-known for _____.
    8·2 answers
  • Match the following items.
    15·1 answer
  • Unalienable rights are best described as rights that -
    7·2 answers
  • Whitch item is it a,b,c or d ​
    13·1 answer
  • Pls help!!! Urgent!
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!