History, 14.07.2019 02:30 btcastongia

Determine whether the following characteristics describe conditions in germany before or after unification. written constitution 300 german states trade facilitated in the region risk of french aggression boundaries changed by napoleon two-house legislature

Answers: 1

Show answers

Answers

Answer from: tyrone6410

Answers, with explanations:

written constitution = after unification

During revolutions in 1848-1849, the Frankfurt Parliament had produced a constitution for a unified Germany, but that move was rejected at the time by the king of Prussia, to whom the constitution was offered.

300 German states = before unification

The German states had a long history of sovereignty in their individual territories. Unification meant bringing all those states together into one national entity.

trade facilitated in the region = before unification

The Zollverein, or customs union, was created between the German states in the 1830s. This eliminated customs tariffs between states and was a step that began moving in the direction of unification.

risk of French aggression = before unification

Germany became a united empire after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Victory over France in that war by the German states operating as a coalition was part of what brought about unification.

boundaries changed by Napoleon = before unification

When Napoleon conquered territories throughout Europe in the early 1800s, he rearranged borders to enhance his empire's management of conquered territories. In the German states, this made them work together in ways they had not before, and was a catalyst toward desires for unification.

two-house legislature = after unification

There was a legislature in the North German Confederation (1867-1870), which preceded unification. But that was a single-house (unicameral) parliament, whereas the Reichstag (legislature) of the unified German Empire was bicameral.

Answer from: Quest

citizens united v. federal election commission, case in which the u.s. supreme court on january 21, 2010, ruled (5–4) that laws that prevented corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for independent “electioneering communications” (political advertising) violated the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. in so doing the court invalidated section 203 of the federal bipartisan campaign reform act of 2002 (bcra)—also known as the mccain-feingold act for its sponsors, sen. john mccain and sen. russ feingold—as well as section 441(b) of the federal election campaign act of 1971 (feca), which the bcra had amended. the court also overturned in whole or in part two previous supreme court rulings: austin v. michigan chamber of commerce (1990) and mcconnell v. federal election commission (2003).

immediately perceived as historically important, the decision generated intense controversy outside the court. some hailed it as a resounding victory for freedom of speech, while others criticized it as an overreaching attempt to rewrite campaign finance law. among the critics was pres. barack obama, who remarked in his state of the union address in the house of representatives one week later that the decision would “open the floodgates for special interests…to spend without limit in our elections.” his criticism provoked one of the supreme court justices in attendance, samuel a. alito, to break decorum by mouthing the words “not true.”

explanation:

Answer from: Quest

where is the section with the question?