Answer:
Communism is a type of government as well as an economic system (a way of creating and sharing wealth)
Explanation:
In a Communist system, individual people do not own land, factories, or machinery. Instead, the government or the whole community owns these things.
Answer:
False - The king had limited power in the government
Explanation:
The American and French Revolutions were directly inspired by Enlightenment ideals and respectively marked the peak of its influence and the beginning of its decline.
The French Revolution was shaped more by Rousseau's ideas than by the works of any other figure. ... These works thrust Rousseau into the public arena – but his strong criticisms of royalty, aristocracy and religion also saw him hounded out of Geneva. He returned to France, where he lived out the remainder of his years.
The immediate cause of the Revolution was that the French monarchy faced imminent bankruptcy. (This was partly because of the enormous sums it had spent assisting the American Revolution between 1778 and 1781 in order to discomfort the traditional enemy, Britain.)
Answer:
Bush wanted to keep diplomatic ties in place with China.
Bush wanted to avoid another dispute with a global superpower
Answer:
the international conflict.
Answer: The freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Explanation: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of American public officials to sue for defamation. The Supreme court specifically held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or person running for public office, not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation, they must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether or not it was true.
The Court said it was necessary to protect the erroneous statements about public officials that would come up in free debate, otherwise critics of public officials will censor their speech for fear of potentially unlimited liability which could severely limit the information that could be given or published about the character of such officials.