Answer: The situation is unconstitutional because it is defamation or libel
Explanation: The freedom of the press is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the American Constitution, which regulates all the rights and obligations of the media, including the press. This means that everyone has the right to freely report and write, and freely express their opinions without censorship. However, there are some limitations when it comes to press freedom. There are, among other things, the extent to which the journalist, i.e the writer of the article, can secure the protection of a confidential source, then also indecency. In this our case it is defamation which, when it comes to defamation in the press, calls libel. If Nancy wanted to make up a story about a politician she personally dislikes, then it is defamation. The First Amendment also does not guarantee the journalist the right to interfere personal feelings about the politician with professional writing in the newspaper. This means that if Nancy made up the story of a politician without real evidence of any wrongdoing, then it was defamation in the newspaper, therefore, libel.
The Russians were upset because the terms of the treaty were extremely harsh. Russia had to give up almost half of its European territory and turn them over to Germany. Russia lost large areas of prime agricultural lands, eighty per cent of the coal mines and half of its other industries. Russia also had to pay six billion marks in reparation.
According to one of the fundamental rules of the Constitution, the ultimate authority in the United States is held by "The people" - the President, Senate and the Supreme Court are only there to enforce and represent this authority.
