Economic factors is your answer
McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.
The case arose in 2008, when Otis McDonald, a retired African American custodian, and others filed suit in U.S. District Court to challenge provisions of a 1982 Chicago law that, among other things, generally banned the new registration of handguns and made registration a prerequisite of possession of a firearm. The next day the National Rifle Association and others filed separate lawsuits challenging the Chicago law and an Oak Park, Ill., law that generally prohibited the possession or carrying of handguns and the carrying of other firearms except rifles or shotguns in one’s home or place of business. Each suit alleged that the law violated the right of individuals to possess and carry weapons, which the Supreme Court had found to be protected by the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). (Anticipating this finding, the plaintiffs in McDonald v. City of Chicago filed suit on the same morning that the decision in Heller was announced.) The crucial question, however, was whether the Second Amendment is applicable to the states and their political subdivisions. Citing “selective incorporation,” the Supreme Court’s gradual application to the states of most of the protections of the Bill of Rights through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which prohibits the states from denying life, liberty, or property without due process of law), the plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment is applicable through that clause as well as through the amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause (which forbids the states from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States)
<u><em>Have a good day, afternoon or night!</em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<u><em></em></u>
<em> ~Dreamer1331~</em>
What link ? i don’t see one
Answer:
B. establishing the African Union
Explanation:
Pan-Africanism is a worldwide movement that aims to encourage and strengthen bonds of solidarity between all indigenous and diaspora ethnic groups of African descent.
Soviet Union was a state capitalist society with totalitarian government. That is, all means of production were controlled by the state. No private ownership allowed. Internationalism was a basis of Soviet national politics.
Fascism is a radical nationalist ideology with a mixed economy when privately owned means of production isn't a problem .
Communism is a stateless society with commonly owned means of production. Stateless implies no borders; all countries are cooperating and benefiting the whole planet, not a particular nation.
That means, the USSR wasn't communist, but it wasn't fascist. The perceived similarity with fascism is totalitarian government, though there is a difference: Dictator (Führer) in Germany had enormous personal power while the USSR was controlled by elite (Nomenklatura).
