The policies of the winning and losing powers in Europe and the Us were resultant in the second world war.
Explanation:
After the first world war there was an undercurrent of dictatorship and fascism in many countries that was on the rise but the winners of the war did not much care for it.
They were taking up a policy of suspension and of appeasement to quell the desire of the Germans and the Italians but that was not to happen as diplomacy failed.
The harsh treaty of Versailles had made it hard for the losing sides not to harbor resentment and it burst open in another animosity and war
Answer:
The Sherman Act authorized the Federal Government to institute proceedings against trusts in order to dissolve them. Any combination “in the form of trust or otherwise that was in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations” was declared illegal.
Explanation:
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, and North Carolina
Answer:
The Pullman Strike and Loewe Vs Lawlor
Explanation:
The Pullman Strike was an organised strike by the American Railway Union against the Pullman Company. The strike closed off many of the nations railroad traffic. Workers of the Pullman company had gone on strike in response to a reduction in wages and when this was unsuccessful, they increased their efforts and with the help of the AFU took it nationwide. They refused to couple or move any train that carried a Pullman car. At its peak the strike included 250,000 workers in 27 states.The federal government's response was to obtain an injunction against the union and to order them to stop interfering with trains. When they refused, President Cleveland sent in the army to stop strikers from interfering with the trains. Violence broke out and the strike collapsed. The leaders were sentenced to prison and the ARU dissolved.
Loewe V Lawlor was a Supreme Court decision that went against the rights of the labour movement. D. E. Loewe & Company had been subjected to a strike and a boycott as a result of it becoming an 'open shop'. The nationwide boycott was supported by the American Federation of Labor and persuaded retailers, wholesalers and customers not to buy from Loewe. This boycott cost him a large amount of money and he sued the union for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act (Another piece of legislation subsequently used to attack unions).
The case was sent to the US Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, which found that the lawsuit was out of the scope of the Sherman Act. However, upon appeal it then went to the Supreme Court, who ruled in favour of Loewe. The courts decision was important for two reasons. Firstly it allowed individual unionists to be held personally responsible for damages arising from the activities of their unions. Secondly, it effectively outlawed secondary boycott (Where members of different companies boycott in solidarity with the affected workers) as a violation of the Sherman Act. Both of these limited the ability of the unions to bring about change through striking and boycott.
Read more on Brainly.com - brainly.com/question/13463190#readmore
A "Formal Amendment" is one that actually adds to or changes the US Constitution. It is ratified by the states and becomes law.
An "informal amendment"is a change to the meaning or interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. There is no real informal way to change the Constitution, and it's not an actual change to the wording of the Constitution; rather, it's the way we perceive the Constitution that changes.
The one that comes to mind is the equal rights amendment (1972) - which prohibits the inequality of men and women. Opponents say that the amendment is no longer needed, as the issues
