Answer:
It depends on what you want to do.
Explanation:
Australia in 1804 revolted from the British empire, which then became it's own nation. However, the British still had a lot of influence in Australia at the time. Australia didn't have the best economy and was hostile to the British. So it all depends on who you were, and where you came from.
Answer:
Leaders often seize power by illegitimate means.
A single leader or a very powerful group rules.
Leaders refuse to tolerate dissenting views.
Explanation:
Authoritarian government is the form of government in which one member holds the authority of taking the decisions and its implementation. The participatory role of any other member is restricted in this form of government. The sole authority lies in the single hand. Individual freedom is not given space and the actions and thoughts of the citizens are monitored as per the government rules and guidelines.
Answer:
Radicalism can be defined as the actions and beliefs of people who advocate complete political reform. During 1890s to 1945, some radical groups had ties with two great political parties in America. The populist party and the Democratic party.
Explanation:
The populist party called for the abolition of national banks, civil service reform, and government control of railways this was supported by William Jennings Bryan and some other leaders in the Democratic party.
Futhermore, some major trade unions were linked to the Democratic party like the American Federation of Labor.
The American Civil Liberties Union was formed in 1921 when more radical organisations were subject to violent attacks especially during world war 1, to protect immigrants that were threatened with deportation and American nationals that were threatened with criminal charges.
Mr. Justice Jackson, dissenting. . . .
Much is said of the danger to liberty from the Army program for deporting and detaining these citizens of Japanese extraction. But a judicial construction of the due process clause that will sustain this order is a far more subtle blow to liberty than the promulgation of the order itself. A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency. Even during that period a succeeding commander may revoke it all. But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. . . . A military commander may overstep the bounds of constitutionality, and it is an incident. But if we review and approve, that passing incident becomes the doctrine of the Constitution. There it has a generative power of its own, and all that it creates will be in its own image. Nothing better illustrates this danger than does the Court’s opinion in this case. . . .
yes i copy and pasted but this is your answer
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Both systems have mayors who do not have power.
