In what ways did agressive rulers in italy and the soviet union have the leeway to come into power in the first place? (provide evidence) a. they rose to power because all of the aggressive rulers had been a part of the previous world war and won, so the people in their country admired them. b. they promised the people of their country that they would run a democratic government. c. none of these answers. d. the depression that hit america also affected other parts of the world and these rulers came to power by solving their people's problems and gaining their trust

The correct answer is D) the Depression that hit America also affected other parts of the world and these rulers came to power by solving their people's problems and gaining their trust.

Aggressive rulers in Italy and the Soviet Union had the leeway to come into power in the first place in that the Depression that hit America also affected other parts of the world and these rulers came to power by solving their people's problems and gaining their trust.

Previous governments in the Soviet Union and Italy were not able to get appropriate and expected results and their people desperately needed the kind of determined leader that assured them that things were going to change for the good. Those aggressive leaders and their rhetoric made enough promises and people tristed them. That is how Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union and Benito Mussolini in Italy had a leeway to come into power and later became dictators.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is

c or d. good luck !