Taxes should be the right answer
Answer:
John Calvin Coolidge
Explanation:
He was born July 4th 1872
Answer
what list are we choosing the word from? and what definition ?
People give different versions of the same story as they want. The Turkish Army Officer Lieutenant Baas' account is important as His first-hand account contradicts the denial.
The Ottoman government in 1916 was known to have massacres a lot of people.
The Armenian genocide denial was a big case in the world. The claim made by the Ottoman Empire and the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) was that they had no hand in the genocide against the Armenian people during World War I.
This was a very big crime that has a lot of documentation on the numbers of evidences to prove their guilt but they still won't accept that they committed it.
See full question below
Considering that the Ottoman government denied any orders or mass killings, why is Turkish Army Officer Lieutenant Baas' account important?
A. His first-hand account supports the Ottoman government
B. His first-hand account contradicts this denial
C. He had recovered old documents that support the Ottoman government
D. He had recovered old documents that contradict this denial
Learn more about Ottoman government from
brainly.com/question/25798424
Answer: Appointing judges to the court.
Explanation: Firstly, enforcing a law doesn’t really limit the power of the judicial branch because they can simply strike down the law if it’s unconstitutional. Secondly, the President does not have the power to approve judicial nominations. That is only the Senate’s job. The President can appoint or nominate them, but the Senate is the one who approves.
Also, vetoing laws doesn’t limit the Judicial Branch’s power really in any way. Now, the correct answer is: Appointing judges / justices to the courts. This is because this power can not be limited at all by the judicial branch, only by congress. The Senate can deny the confirmation / appointment of a President’s appointee, and the Congress can also impeach that appointee later on for committed high crimes. The Judicial Branch can’t do any of that. The President can limit the Judiciary’s power by appointing judges that will go against any potential agenda of the Judicial Branch. For instance, if there happens to be liberal Supreme Court, whereas a majority of the members of the Supreme Court identify as liberal or were appointed by a Democratic President, a Republican President may want to nominate / appoint a conservative Justice or Justices to cancel out their majority and re-take the majority of the court. Honestly, this was a poorly worded question (not your fault at all, but the person who wrote it) because this doesn’t limit the power of the Judicial Branch in terms of its constitutional structure and powers, it merely limits and restricts the narrative or agenda of the members of the branch. Anyway, your answer is B: Appointing judges to the court.
