With the exception of Austria-Hungary, new imperialism was entrenched in the policies of all the European powers. This frenzy to acquire colonies was due to the potential financial and psychological benefits that colonies provide. Financially speaking, the colonies can help European nation’s name economy by firstly providing the raw materials necessary for industrialization which were lacking in continental Europe. Secondly, after using the raw materials to produce the merchandise, the colonies provided a market where the European nations can sell their manufactured goods. Hence, new colonies can begin an exploitive cycle where the European nations take resources from their colonial subjects then profits exportation of completed goods
More importantly, Alexander's conquests spread Greek culture, also known as Hellenism, across his empire. In fact, Alexander's reign marked the beginning of a new era known as the Hellenistic Age because of the powerful influence that Greek culture had on other people.
Ida B Wells used a strategy called"data
journalism" in her anti-lynching movement. She trekked through the south
keeping archives of all the lynchings that happened and the explanations for
them. She then put this together in her book "A Red Record: Tabulated
Statistics and Alleged Causes of Lynchings
The group of people who occupied the majority of Austria in the year 1914 was Romanians. Hence, Option D is the correct answer.
<h3>Why did Romania declare conflict with Austria-Hungary?</h3>
Romania joined the conflict which will assert its claims on the Austrian, Hungarian, and Austrian territories where the Romanians were in the majority.
It become the cease of a countrywide challenge that successive Romanian governments had lengthy labored for. Transylvania becomes, in this context, extra vital than Bessarabia.
Hence, Option D is the correct answer.
learn more about Romania here:
brainly.com/question/632754
#SPJ1
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
