Why did mikhail gorbachev have trouble retaining support from hard-line communists? a. he denounced boris yeltsin. b. he threatened to dismantle the communist system. c. he promised reform in eastern europe. d. he refused to crush rebellions in eastern europe.

The correct answer option is D. He refused to crush rebellions in Eastern Europe.

Explanation:

Mikhail Gorbachev had trouble retaining support from the hard line communists because he refused to crush the rebellions in Eastern Europe.

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev was a Russian Soviet politician who was also the General Secretary of the Communist Party in the late 1980's.

The local reforms nuclear decommissioning contracts also helped in bringing the Cold War to an end.

The correct answer is D) he refused to crush rebellions in Eastern Europe.

Mikhail Gorbachev had trouble retaining support from hard-line communists because he refused to crush rebellions in Eastern Europe.

When everything seemed that the Soviet Union would never change, Mikhail Gorbachev started a series of changes called perestroika and glasnost that transformed the world scenario and the relationships between Russia and the West World. Gorbachev opened the door to foreign investment, gave some liberties to the soviet people, and ended up dissolving the Soviet Union on December 26, 1991.

some women in the middle and upper classes worked as doctors, government officials, or priestesses. both women and men enjoyed a better quality of life the higher they were on the social pyramid. the egyptians believed that their class system created a stable, well-ordered society. each group had its own role to play.

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