The Vietnam War was when communistic North Vietnam wanted and Democratic South Vietnam to join them and be a single union. The U.S supported SV and even sent troops to help out as well and Europe. NV had the U.S.S.R on their side and in the end NV won and both countries became one under communist rule
Answer:
its always C trush me better beived
Explanation:
Answer:
D). All of the above.
Explanation:
As per the question, all the given statements assert the outcomes of different court decisions of the years 1944, 1946, and 1948. In Smith Vs. Allwright case, the ap-ex court of the U.S. declared that the voters can not be outcasted from the voting rights by discriminating against them on the grounds of race. While in <u>Morgan Vs. Virginia case, the supreme court announced that it was unconstitutional(violation of the constitution) to segregate the riders on the basis of their race in interstate commercial buses</u>. And in the Shelly v. Kraemer case, the court declared the racially confining covenants to be the breach of the 14th amendment that declares 'equal protection to all its citizens regarding the rights of property, freedom, and life.' Thus, <u>option D</u> is the correct answer.
Answer:
<u>Because even if the Absolutism has similarities and was applied in almost the entire Europe, each country modeled its conceptions to adapt to reality. </u>And this reality could be <u>social, political or religious.</u>
Explanation:
I believe that the better way to understand this point is analyzing the two major countries where the Absolutism was strong: France and England.
- France was ruled by Louis XIV in the 17th century. He describes himself as "The state is me" (“L'Etat c'est Moi”). This monarch is the main definition of the absolutist ruler. <u>To support his government, Louis XIV follows the idea of Divine Right of Kings which argued that the monarch had divine powers and was elected by God. Thus, his actions and laws were divine and couldn't be disrespected. </u>The question is: why this conception worked in France? <u>Because it was a catholic country, and religious perceptions were followed without question. Plus, Louis XIV had no limits in his powers. I mean, there was no law or political scheme that could limit him.</u>
- On the contrary, in England, <u>the king was subjected to the Parlament. </u>However, only this restriction was not sufficed to limit his power. The main point is that the British kings <u>followed the idea of a social contract (popularized by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes). </u>This idea attests that <u>a king has duties with its people,</u> and the Parlament was always remembering him about this. So, he couldn't do whatever he wanted.
