Evaluate Stalin’s rule based on the information provided; was his rule good or bad for the USSR?

Stalin's rule was neither good or bad, it had some good aspects and some bad aspects.

Explanation:

The positive aspects of Stalin's rule are mainly two: his economic policy was successful in the sense that he managed to finally industrialize the country, since at the time his rule started, the USSR was essentially an agrarian country.

The other positive aspect is that he led the Soviet resistance to Nazi Germany, and, at the cost of 25 million Soviet lives, managed to help in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

The negative aspects are also economic in nature, because his agricultural economic policy failed several times, and led to various episodes of famine, including the Holodomor.

The other negative aspect is in the field of civil liberties and civil rights. Stalin imprisoned people in the gulags, sent political opponets to execution, and even erased people from official records.

fair labor standards act

explanation:

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