Answer and Explanation:
a. A historical similarity was the increase in the size of the USA. This promoted a larger and more imposing territory on the world stage, but it also presented disadvantages such as some problems in managing such a large territory and government spending, which were resolved over time.
b. A historical difference was that the Northwest Territory was obtained through a treaty with strictly political objectives, on the other hand, the acquisition of Louisiana was made through a purchase, which in addition to also having political objectives, imposing a federal expense.
c. One of the main differences is that Louisiana was sold by the French government, which encouraged a whole period of adaptation of the place to American culture and politics. On the other hand, the northwestern territory established a territorial difference due to the existence of civil freedom and freedom of blacks.
Answer:
As the chief executive of our nation, I respectfully suggest that you unwittingly crush the spirit of freedom in Negroes by constantly urging forbearance and give hope to those pro-segregation leader
ssppgrade5.yolasite.com › res...PDF
Letter from Jackie Robinson on Civil Rights.
The main reason that Jackie Robinson has to write his letter to President Eisenhower is that he hopes that the president will take immediate action to curb segregation laws at the federal level.
Explanation:
17 million Negroes cannot do as you suggest and wait for the hearts of men to change. We want to enjoy now the rights that we feel we are entitled to as Americans. This we cannot do unless we pursue aggressively goals which all other Americans achieved over 150 years ago.
As the chief executive of our nation, I respectfully suggest that you unwittingly crush the spirit of freedom in Negroes by constantly urging forbearance and give hope to those pro-segregation leaders like Governor Faubus who would take from us even those freedoms we now enjoy. Your own experience with Governor Faubus is proof enough that forbearance and not eventual integration is the goal the pro-segregation leaders seek.
In my view, an unequivocal statement backed up by action such as you demonstrated you could take last fall in dealing with Governor Faubus if it became necessary, would let it be known that America is determined to provide—in the near future—for Negroes—the freedoms we are entitled to under the constitution.
It wasn't true for the economies at the end of the World War 2
was that the GNP and corporate profits doubled.
Answer:
overproduction of goods and the expansion of unbridled credit by banks.
Explanation:
The Great Depression of the 1930s was the largest recession in history and its causes were overproduction of goods and the expansion of unbridled credit by banks.
The American economy was experiencing a period of euphoria during the 1920s. The US had become the world's leading economic powerhouse and was the largest supplier of manufactures to Europe. In this scenario, banks have expanded their credit rampantly to sustain the increase in production. However, production increased in a way that there was not enough consumer market to dispose of the products. The businessmen lost the conditions to pay their loans to the banks and the financial system collapsed.
Currently, the Federal Reserve has regulatory mechanisms that aim to reduce the risk of unbridled expansion of bank credit, such as the collection of the compulsory deposit and monetary policy. However, it is not possible to say that the risk is non-existent. We live in a special moment where technology has positive impacts, but can also cause negative havoc. For example, virtual currencies, if not well regulated, can cause a new crisis.
Answer:
Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare that acts of the other branches of government are unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable. For example if Congress were to pass a law banning newspapers from printing information about certain political matters, courts would have the authority to rule that this law violates the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. State courts also have the power to strike down their own state’s laws based on the state or federal constitutions.
Today, we take judicial review for granted. In fact, it is one of the main characteristics of government in the United States. On an almost daily basis, court decisions come down from around the country striking down state and federal rules as being unconstitutional. Some of the topics of these laws in recent times include same sex marriage bans, voter identification laws, gun restrictions, government surveillance programs and restrictions on abortion.
Other countries have also gotten in on the concept of judicial review. A Romanian court recently ruled that a law granting immunity to lawmakers and banning certain types of speech against public officials was unconstitutional. Greek courts have ruled that certain wage cuts for public employees are unconstitutional. The legal system of the European Union specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Union the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is also afforded to the courts of Canada, Japan, India and other countries. Clearly, the world trend is in favor of giving courts the power to review the acts of the other branches of government.
However, it was not always so. In fact, the idea that the courts have the power to strike down laws duly passed by the legislature is not much older than is the United States. In the civil law system, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. In the (British) common law system, on which American law is based, judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. However, as Britain has no Constitution, the principle that a court could strike down a law as being unconstitutional was not relevant in Britain. Moreover, even to this day, Britain has an attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy. Therefore, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike down legislation.
Explanation:
nationalparalegal.edu /JudicialReview.aspx
