The Russian revolutionaries wanted something more than famine and injustice -- and that's much of what existed in Russia at that time. They wanted equality for all persons. That was a big goal of the communist agenda, and the Russian Revolution was a communist endeavor. They wanted to achieve that equality both in terms of wealth/property and in terms of political status and rights.
Was it dangerous? Absolutely. The reign of the tsars had gone on in Russia for centuries, and military victory over the tsar's armies had to be won for the revolution to succeed. And it was not going to be easy to make the nation better off, even after the revolution. The people would expect results from the new government. Those results were going to be hard to achieve.
Over time, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which was the nation brought about by the Russian Revolution, has to become more and more authoritarian and repressive to keep its agenda going. And eventually that agenda failed, when about 75 years after the revolution, the USSR's government collapsed.
The supreme court tends to check congress more than the president because congress passes laws, which change the way the courts work in this country, so the supreme court is a major stake holder in what gets passed through acts of congress. Most of the time, a president is checked by the court through a bill they've thrown serious political muscle behind and gotten passed through congress. Great examples of the supreme court striking down presidentially endorsed acts of congress is the court striking down the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and the national Recovery Administration that FDR pushed for as part of the New Deal. This also nearly happened in recent times with Obamacare, where several components of the bill narrowly avoided being struck down by the supreme court. The supreme court can also check executive orders. The supreme court also struck down some elements of President Trump's muslim ban in the last month.
Answer:
The absence of armed fight against the mother country (Spain and Portugal), and the result of each independence.
Explanation:
The main characteristic of the independence movements of the Spanish colonies is that in almost all there was a war between the colonists and colonizers that dragged on for some years and ended with the victory of the colonists. It was like that in Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, and Bolivia. In Brazil, <u><em>there were several conflicts during the Independence process, but none directly influenced the Declaration of Independence.</em></u>
The main difference between the Independence movements of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile is the result achieved by each country. In Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, declarations of Independence took these countries directly to the republican regime, while <u><em>in Brazil there was only a political break with the metropolis maintaining the entire system that was in force during the colony.</em></u>
There both ancient sorry I just want to make u laugh
