Answer:
ocialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and democratic control or workers' self-management of enterprises. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.
Explanation:
Answer:
With this question, you need to see which side of the argument you support. Do you believe they should've gone to war or not?
Why?
I said I didn't support it because we solved the problem in a less destructive manner.
Explanation:
Just fill in the blanks with your opinion and facts to support your opinion.
Nobody can really tell you how to feel or answer these.
It's up to you and your opinion!
<span>Remember, at the time, it was the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Empire (unlike any of the other major states in Europe) was a patchwork of over a dozen major ethnic groups. Nationalism tends to organize along ethnic boundaries (that is, nations tend to form around a large concentration of one ethnic group). Thus, with a very large number of different ethnic groups, the Empire had to worry about each group wanting to split from the Empire, and form its own nation. Indeed, after WW1, this is what happened to the Empire - it was split into about a 8 different countries (or, more accurately, portions of 8 countries included lands formerly part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire).</span>
The French and Indian War was the North American conflict that was part of a larger imperial conflict between Great Britain and France known as the Seven Years' War. The French and Indian War began in 1754 and ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1763. The Seven Years War ended with the signing of the treaties of Hubertusburg and Paris in February 1763. In the Treaty of Paris, France lost all claims to Canada and gave Louisiana to Spain, while Britain received Spanish Florida, Upper Canada, and various French holdings overseas.
Answer:
The Constitution nowhere contains an express injunction to preserve the boundaries of the three broad powers it grants, nor does it expressly enjoin maintenance of a system of checks and balances. Yet, it does grant to three separate branches the powers to legislate, to execute, and to adjudicate, and it provides throughout the document the means by which each of the branches could resist the blandishments and incursions of the others. The Framers drew up our basic charter against a background rich in the theorizing of scholars and statesmen regarding the proper ordering in a system of government of conferring sufficient power to govern while withholding the ability to abridge the liberties of the governed.1
The Theory
