Because they have a great economy and it is one of the richest countries of the world.
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.
<span>The closest to perfection would be an interdependent Confederation of societies, each containing between one and two hundred citizens, depending upon factors such as location and climate. These villages would be more or less evenly distributed across the globe, having access to roughly equivalent amounts of arable land. Thirty per cent of all land would be designated wilderness, and no societies would be allowed to colonise these areas, but antisocial individuals would be free to inhabit the wilderness following a life-style of total lonesomeness.</span>
