Answer: Opposing parties sought to expand their influence globally.
Explanation:
India, like many other countries of the world, sought to be drawn into the Cold War. The two biggest competitors, the Soviet Union and the United States, sought to win over Cold War partners outside Europe. Given its geostrategic position and wealth, India should have been drawn into two opposing blocs. Yet, the Indian government has decided not to opt for either side. On the contrary, she was the main initiator of the ideas of the Non-Aligned Movement. The movement found several countries opting for neutrality during the uncertain times of the Cold War.
Answer:
Three factors which helped Gandhi and forced Europeans to leave India is
Explanation:
First- Satyagraha which was mobilisation on large scale
Second- was building organisational structure to fight for India in the form of Indian National Congress
Third is the foundation of constructive programs such as initiation for khadi and self sufficiency.
These three factors results in fostering progress such as mass protests which brought Indians under one roof with common objective of achieving Independence for India. Gandhi's weapons of satyagraha and non-voilence was the biggest tactics which got wide attention of the world to the problems India due to colonisation.
Answer:
The best answer to the question: How does the Supreme Court in the 2000 election challenge the original intent? Would be, A: Because the Supreme Court could be considered a faction.
Explanation:
Although essentially the Judicial branch was designed to become a neutral power, without any leanings towards a particular party, or a particular form of government, in the 2000 election, this line was crossed and many Americans started believing that this ideal of neutrality on the part of the Supreme Court, was crossed. Originally, the Court is supposed to become an interpreter of the Law, the U.S Constitution and other legislation, that impacts the outcomes of different activities in American life.
In the 2000 election, the Court had to intervene when a lawsuit was presented to challenge the election of George W. Bush as President, in the case Bush vs. Gore. The point was that in Florida´s election, it seemed that there had been a miscount of votes, which favored Bush, over Gore.
Although the initial suit was taken up by the Florida Supreme Court, the matter reached all the way to the U.S Supreme Court, and they stepped in, on account of supposed violations to the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. Arguing protection of Floridian voters´ rights, the Court stopped the counting and made a decision. In this form, they favored Bush, over Gore, and thus were considered to have become partisan. Something the Founding Fathers had not intended to happen when they Framed the Constitution. They became a faction at that point which highly favored Bush and his party, by basically giving him the Presidency.
<span>B. Focus on freedom of expression. They have in common the attitudes taken by the court before the expressions of the individuals. The case of 1919, attacks the individual for his expression against the war. The 1969 case the individual is condemned by the expression of his speech. Case 1989 condemns the individual for his expression of repulsion when burning the flag. The latter case is justified as a conviction for the offense to the flag, while the others are sentences for repression against the rights of expression.</span>
<span>Northeast, South, West</span>
