6. How were American attitudes toward sex changing in the
1950s?

The 1950s is often viewed as a period of conformity, when both men and women observed strict gender roles and complied with society’s expectations. After the devastation of the Great Depression and World War II, many Americans sought to build a peaceful and prosperous society. However, even though certain gender roles and norms were socially enforced, the 1950s was not as conformist as is sometimes portrayed, and discontent with the status quo bubbled just beneath the surface of the placid peacetime society. Although women were expected to identify primarily as wives and mothers and to eschew work outside of the home, women continued to make up a significant proportion of the postwar labor force. Moreover, the 1950s witnessed significant changes in patterns of sexual behavior, which would ultimately lead to the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s.

Explanation:

You had to live through it to understand it.

WWII had just ended. A lot of vets were turned loose. They wanted homes. They wanted children. The wanted peace. They most of all, did not want to fight in another war.  The entertainment turned very light. The heavy thinking was just not the order of the day. So you got conformity, because the vets were used to discipline.

But you also got Elvis who was away ahead of his time (much as I hate to say it). He revolutionized popular music, by bringing black music to the white community. You also got the Beat Generation who rebelled against staid America. Search Jack Kerouac and Alan Ginsburg.

For a better picture, if you live somewhere where there is a large library, try and get The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit. It reflects the values of the 1950s just about as well as anything and it has a terrific cast. That's one film that did think.

1 and 3

explanation:

learned it in 6th

separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another.   the intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.  

the traditional characterizations of the powers of the branches of american government are:

* the legislative branch is responsible for enacting the laws of the state and appropriating the money necessary to operate the government.

* the executive branch is responsible for implementing and administering the public policy enacted and funded by the legislative branch.

* the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their interpretations to controversies brought before it.

forty state constitutions specify that government be divided into three branches:   legislative, executive and judicial.   california illustrates this approach; "the powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial.   persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this constitution."

while separation of powers is key to the workings of american government, no democratic system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers. governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap; they are too complex and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized. as a result, there is an inherent measure of competition and conflict

minnesota:   minnesota house research,   separation of powers: when statutes and court rules conflict, 2005