The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Potential benefits of growing up in a Communistic society.
-Great educational system. Communist is characterized for having an excellent school system.
-Education is free in Communist systems.
-Excellent public health system. And it is also free.
-Communism can create a kind of equality in a society that is totally the opposite of de inequality created in Capitalist systems.
-Great physical education development that forges true sports competitors, as it has been seen in the Olympic Games.
Potential downsides.
-People cannot own property.
-It limits your aspirations to grow and prosper. Under communism, every individual has the same.
-There is no entrepreneurship spirit.
-The state owns the means of production, and dictates what to produce, when to produce, and at what price.
-Generally speaking, there is no freedom of speech in Communist systems.
From medieval Calvary dominated armies with almost no firearms to renaissance armies dominated by infantry armed with muskets.
Answer:
The main reason for the rise of dictators in Europe and Asia during the 1930s was that dictators promised economic recovery and order - c. Europe and parts of Asia were in bad economic shape from the World War I stil after that time. Dictators then arose with promises of great recovery and whatnot.
Explanation:
i used somthing called the internet
Explanation:
The Han dynasty was governed by a centralized monarchy headed by an emperor and supported by an elaborate structure of imperial administration. The Han government was divided into three branches: the civil service (public administration), the military (defense), and the censorate (auditor).
Life in the city was difficult for the poor who lived in crowded houses and often went without food. Life in countryside was better for the peasants. They had to work hard, but they generally had food and shelter. Taxes were reduced during the Han Dynasty and people who tilled the soil were often respected.
<span>The Supreme Court is most likely to be accused of judicial activism in cases involving: protection of individual rights.
Writing for the conservative group, <em>The Heritage Foundation</em>, Elizabeth Slattery defines judicial activism as "w</span><span>hen judges fail to apply the Constitution or laws impartially according to their original public meaning, regardless of the outcome, or do not follow binding precedent of a higher court and instead decide the case based on personal preference."
Cases involving individual rights are likely to elicit charges of judicial activism because the Constitution does not spell out each and every sort of right citizens may have. New questions come up that were not considered or specified at the time the Constitution was written. For instance, <em>Roe v. Wade </em>(1973) addressed the question of abortion and an individual's right to privacy. <em>Obergefell v. Hodges </em>(2015) addressed the legality of same-sex marriage. Both are cases of individual rights, where the Constitution did not give direct instruction on the issues at stake. The decisions on those issues, to allow abortion and to allow same-sex marriage, both are criticized by conservatives as instances of judicial activism.</span>
