Which party is more likely to turn Uhuru into a client state of the Soviet Union — one that is dependent on the USSR — and why? Which party is more likely to set up a pro-Western government, and why?

What might be the result of supporting the Brown Party with soft or hard power?

Answer these questions fully and un plagiarized please, if it is good, I will give brainy.

1. The Brown Party: This party is seen to be more likely to turn the Uhuru into a client state of the Soviet Union because of its desire to be near to other countries. Also, the party wants to invest in other foreign nations. An interest to work with the Soviet Union will be as a result of the party's desire to work with other nations.

2. The Green Party: This party faction is more likely to set up a pro-Western government because of its focus on agriculture. Also, under the Central Government, its desire is to nationalize the utilities, agriculture, even the mining industries.

The Green Party also desires to stay neutral in the Cold War. This is seen as the best for the United States because they will not get involved with other nations.

3. Supporting the Brown Party with soft power will result to better and fruitful negotiations with other nations. This is because it wants close relationships with those nations. Such a decision might not work due to the fact that when a country is working out agreements with other countries, it can be sometimes be hard or difficult. Also, it can take up too much time.

While supporting Brown Party with hard power could result to more development in weapons and also lead to an increase in tensions resulting to war.

b) a state law could be declared illegal if it contradicted the constitution.

explanation:

the conflict of this case originated when james w. mcculloch, a cashier of the baltimore branch of the second bank of the united states that the congress had chartered in 1816, refused to pay a tax imposed by the maryland state.

in the case, the state of maryland appealed that the establishment of a second bank was unconstitutional since the constitution didn't say anything about granting that power to congress. however, the case determined that even if such right wasn't specifically stated in the constitution, it was part of the "implied powers" of the government enunciated in article i, section 8.

the case also eliminated maryland's legislation to impose taxes to a national bank, asserting that even though the states retained the power of taxation, the constitution's laws are supreme and can not be controlled by the states, therefore, if a state law contradicts the constitution, it should be declared illegal.

explanation:

answer; i believe that the correct answer is,lies(political rhetoric);