I won't go into too much details but the Asian country that defeated Russia in war, namely the Russo-Japanese war(1904-05) was Japan.
It was a conflict based on good military strategy. It all started because Japan wanted Korea as a province but Russia did not allow that to happen so Japan tried to negotiate to get Korea in exchange that Russia could keep Manchuria but Russia refused and negotiations broke down so Japan thought of an alternative...war.
Japan knew that Russia had a massive army but Japan had a very mobile and well trained army so they used that to their advantage. So the Japanese fleet open fired on the Russia Eastern Fleet in Port Arthur which eventually got destroyed. As Russia suffered humiliating defeats, the country thought it could beat Japan but Japans strategy proved superior so they defeated Russia in many battles. So in order to prevent a total "defeat", Russia asked for Peace (U.S as the middleman)which gave Japan some of what it wanted but not all. This caused both countries to be dissatisfied...
The Old Regime began in the 15th Century. It was a feudal, monarchial type of
government where the Church and nobility are the dominant forces in
society. It was time of absolute
monarchy and development of centralized government. Though there was a period of prosperity, it
would later lead to decline and revolution.
They spread industrial technologies and products across wide areas.
Federalists believed that the central government should be strong and have a lot of power. They held a loose interpretation of the Constitution, meaning they believed that, if the Constitution didn't say you couldn't do something, you could do it.
The Supreme Court was affirming the point that states (not the federal government) should be in charge of the voting procedures in their states.The Supreme Court decision you're referring to, which invalidated pre-clearance conditions, was Shelby County v. Holder (2013). "Pre-clearance" meant that certain states, according to the Voting Rights Acts of 1965, had to get approval in advance from federal authorities for any changes they made to their state regulations regarding voting. That standard had been applied to several states because they had displayed discriminatory practice in their voting laws. The decision in Shelby County v. Holder held that the federal government could not keep applying that requirement on the basis of decades-old data.
I recently posted another answer on Shelby County v. Holder, which you can check out too. Read more on Brainly.com -
brainly.com/question/9069264#readmore
