This is in my opinion one of the aspects that makes the central courts and the different lines of thought within a single subject so interesting. The clash of ideas that we have in this case is a perfect example.
On one side we have those who look at the current 30 million uninsured Americans, which include millions in Texas, and the undeniable success it had in Massachusetts. Most of them conclude that this mandate is a government success.
On the other hand, we can find those who believe that this is a terrible invasion of the government to the citizen's free will to choose their own healthcare options, they see government overreach, and at the same time an unprecedented intrusion on individual liberties to which there is no justification.
Unfortunately this is something that millions of Americans have been forced into. It's evident how they refused to create a public health care system, and instead give more power to the private sector.
After this short debate of ideas, I will give you one question to ponder on: Which principle is more important? Your freedom, your civil liberties, and your freedom from the government line of thought, or the possibilty of providing health care to millions of uninsured Americans?
I hope this solves your question!
Glosnost (sp?)- the opening of the USSR to the rest of the world and western goods/ideas.
the us military was deployed in europe
Answer: The Bill of Rights is the name given to the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution.
The Bill of Rights consists of guarantees of civil liberties and checks on state power; it was added in order to convince states to ratify the Constitution.
Explanation: By the time the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, it had become clear to many American leaders that a more powerful federal government was necessary in order to effectively deal with the challenges facing the young nation.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the central government had neither the power to raise taxes nor the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Additionally, there was no established mechanism through which states could adjudicate conflicts. Many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention understood that the Articles of Confederation would need to be supplanted entirely, not merely revised.
To this end, the delegates spent months debating and shaping the scope and contours of a new and more powerful federal government.
