Verwoerd was an authoritarian, socially conservative leader and an Afrikaner nationalist. He was a member of the Afrikaner Broederbond, an exclusively white and Christian Calvinist secret organization dedicated to advancing the Afrikaner "volk" interests, and like many members of the organization had verbally supported Germany during World War II. Broederbond members like Verwoerd would assume high positions in government upon the Nationalist electoral victory in 1948 and come to wield a profound influence on public and civil society throughout the apartheid era in South Africa.
Verwoerd's desire to ensure white, and especially Afrikaner dominance in South Africa, to the exclusion of the country's nonwhite majority, was a major aspect of his support for a republic (though removing the British monarchy was long a nationalist aspiration anyway). To that same end, Verwoerd greatly expanded apartheid.[citation needed] He branded the system as a policy of "good-neighborliness", stating that different races and cultures could only reach their full potential if they lived and developed apart from each other, avoiding potential cultural clashes,[neutrality is disputed] and that the white minority had to be protected from the majority non-white in South Africa by pursuing a "policy of separate development" namely apartheid and keeping power firmly in the hands of whites.[citation needed] Given Verwoerd's background as a social science academic, he attempted to justify apartheid on ethical and philosophical grounds. This system however saw the complete disfranchisement of the nonwhite population.[2]
Verwoerd heavily repressed opposition to apartheid during his premiership. He ordered the detention and imprisonment of tens of thousands of people and the exile of further thousands, while at the same time greatly empowering, modernizing, and enlarging the white apartheid state's security forces (police and military). He banned black organizations such as the African National Congress and the Pan Africanist Congress, and it was under him that future president Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for life for sabotage.[3][4] Verwoerd's South Africa had one of the highest prison populations in the world and saw a large number of executions and floggings. By the mid-1960s Verwoerd's government to a large degree had put down internal civil resistance to apartheid by employing extraordinary legislative power, draconian laws, psychological intimidation, and the relentless efforts of the white state's security forces.
Apartheid as a program began in 1948 with D. F. Malan's premiership, but it was Verwoerd's large role in its formulation and his efforts to place it on a firmer legal and theoretical footing, including his opposition to even the limited form of integration known as baasskap, that have led him to be dubbed the "Architect of Apartheid". His actions prompted the passing of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1761, condemning apartheid, and ultimately leading to South Africa's international isolation and economic sanctions. On 6 September 1966, Verwoerd was stabbed several times by parliamentary aide Dimitri Tsafendas. He died shortly after, and Tsafendas was jailed until his death in 1999.
Answer:
D) judges are able to strike down any laws they feel are immoral.
Explanation:
None of these are truly correct.
Federal Judges, especially in the Supreme Court, are nominated by the President, but needs to be approved by the two houses of congress. They are also in court for life, unless they break the constitution. These Judges, while they have their own beliefs, are supposed to be "3rd party", however, evidently the judges will rule based on what they believe is right.
A) is not exactly right, because administrations can nominate judges when there is a vacant space, either from the death of a judge or the judge stepping down.
B) is incorrect, because the judges are supposed to rule based on how the law affects the constitutional rights of the citizens of the country. They neither have the obligation to vote Democratic nor Republican.
C) is incorrect, because they are only able to nominate workers who can help them by hiring them. They do not nominate anybody.
D) is technically incorrect, but is your best answer. They do not strike down laws that "they feel are immoral", but that they strike down laws that break the constitution in any shape or form.
~
Answer:
Abraham Lincoln
Explanation:
He did more than most and did it all during the most violent time in American history. Maybe not anymore but kinda. Some may not see it the same way but he also gave his life by working for what he believed was right and then being assassinated for what he believed.
The correct answer is the first one:the anti-communist nations wanted to show that they were united, to make sure they won't be attacked by the Soviet Union.
The USSR didn't threaten to occupy eastern Germany;it did so with the acceptance of the west initiallly,the problem was that they refused to leave it. The last two options are also false.
