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
SIZIF [17.4K]
3 years ago
6

what was the great migration, and what problems and opportunity's faced african americans in post-world war 1 era?

History
1 answer:
klasskru [66]3 years ago
8 0
When many African Americans went North for Job opportunities.And problems that faced them where segregation and the depression<span />
You might be interested in
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
How did new technologies make the building of skyscrapers practical
Westkost [7]

As I recall it was rolled-steel girders riveted together, probably from shipbuilding, together with steam-powered winches and an abundance of cheap steel. As opposed to European cathedrals erected with animal-powered winches and with more expensive forged iron bracing (one of the big cathedrals has a kind or iron corset to keep the walls from bursting outwards).

7 0
3 years ago
President Chester A. Arthur urged, “a liberal appropriation for the support of Indian schools” at twenty years later Henry Adams
Ierofanga [76]

The Russians created a new communist government that aligned with the Central Powers instead.

6 0
3 years ago
Why do the Nazis want the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact?
VladimirAG [237]

<em>They wanted to invade Poland.</em>

Explanation:

Germany, ruled by Hitler during this time, wanted to essentially take over Europe and spread Nazism. Hitler wanted to keep expanding and he wanted to expand into Poland as well.

On August 23, 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union had signed a non-aggression pact called the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. This meant that they had signed an agreement not to attack each other for ten years.

Hitler signed this non-aggression pact because he wanted to be able to invade Poland without fighting the Soviet Union. He knew he would have to be fighting the forces from Great Britain and France on the west and didn't want his east to be fighting him as well.

3 0
3 years ago
What are the two types of bills that are introduced by congress?
Anika [276]
C. Public and Private
7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which of the following areas of British life saw the biggest changes
    9·1 answer
  • Who is the First African American in a Space Mission?
    13·1 answer
  • Which best describes Aztec religion? <br> -bloody <br> -peaceful <br> -simple <br> -monotheistic
    7·2 answers
  • 1. Draw Inferences One reason for Americain imperialism was because of
    9·1 answer
  • Anti-American spirit increased in Latin America when the United States intervened in the governments of which four nations?
    7·2 answers
  • Which government agency was in charge of recruitment and propaganda during world war 2? Plato
    7·1 answer
  • Which nation invaded East Timor after it became independent? (4 points O Portugal O United States O Indonesia O Soviet Union​
    10·2 answers
  • May someone please answer this for me? Thank you.
    10·1 answer
  • True or false the romans developed the concept of "republic" in their government
    13·1 answer
  • Which of the following statements best describes the administration of Charlemagne’s empire?
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!