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
antoniya [11.8K]
3 years ago
13

Which two leaders are most closely associated with installing liberal reforms that led at a decrease in repressive government po

licies
History
1 answer:
Lyrx [107]3 years ago
4 0

Nikita Khrushchev and Mikhail Gorbachev. Hope this helps you :D

You might be interested in
How did John Adams respond to the setting of the XYZ affair
olchik [2.2K]
Adams sends people to negotiate peace
5 0
2 years ago
When did Texas ask to be annexed
Vlada [557]

December 29, 1845 was when they became a state

3 0
2 years ago
I NEED THIS ASAP AND WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST
sveticcg [70]

Answer:

srry if im a bit late the answer is C) was the attempt to apply Darwinian theory to popular society.

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Which of these was an important economic difference between the New England and Southern colonies?
KiRa [710]

Answer:

B

Explanation:

The South had large plantations with cash crops such as cotton on them, which means that they heavily relied on slave labor to harvest them.

3 0
2 years ago
Why do people support the Right to Bear Arms amendment?
EleoNora [17]

Answer:

Explanation:Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).

5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What was true of missionaries who did work in africa like that done by the african methodist episcopal zion church?
    9·2 answers
  • JU
    12·1 answer
  • Arrange the following events in chronological order________.
    6·1 answer
  • (MC)Which statement summarizes changes in Constitutional principles that took place in the 1960s?
    6·1 answer
  • How can countries become members of the EU
    11·1 answer
  • Many children hear stories about
    8·2 answers
  • True or false <br><br> Both the federal and state governments can raise funds through taxation
    13·2 answers
  • Explain why the Revolutionary war was both a war between the Americans and the British and a civil war
    11·2 answers
  • Where did the Israelites originally come from?
    10·2 answers
  • How were the trans-Saharan trade routes different from the Silk Road?
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!