What was the main way that war mobilization to end the great depression? a. many unemployed people went to work in war-related industries. b. many unemployed men were forced to enlist as soldiers. c. many people and businesses grew rich from new technologies. d. many women went to work to replace the men who enlisted.

The correct answer is A. The main way that war mobilization helped to end the Great Depression was that many unemployed people went to work in war-related industries.

Explanation:

World War II was decisive in the end of the Great Depression. The crash of 1929 implied a crisis of more than 10 years, where unemployment and poverty hit the United States like never before, reaching a peak of 25% of unemployed active population.

World War II involved a large-scale military mobilization worldwide, which had repercussions on the industrial production systems of each country. Thus, the countries involved in the conflict had to redouble their productive efforts in order to supply their forces in combat, both of weapons and general supplies. In turn, a large part of the productive population was involved within the armed forces.

This situation also occurred in the United States. When in 1941 the country entered the war, a large part of the male population of productive age was involved in combat. That made many jobs available. Added to this was the increase in production as a result of the war effort, which also increased the need for labor.

In this way, with a need for more production and more jobs available, many people returned to work and were able to escape unemployment, ending the Great Depression.

the answer would be logic.

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