Answer:
d.
Explanation:
they should know where there going because their commander is the one in charge
Answer:
1. still researching?
2. b) Frequently invalidating laws creates confusion and reduces government stability.
3. a) Marbury v. Madison
Explanation:
1.
2. Frequently invalidating legislation lowers government stability. When the Supreme Court invalidates a statute, it creates legal ambiguity. People don't know which laws to obey, causing uncertainty and anarchy. Invalidating laws makes it harder for the government to operate, since new laws may be struck down.
3. The concept that laws and legislation may be struck down by courts if they are deemed to contradict the Constitution was established by the Supreme Court in this case.
The people who think it was justified tend to say that:
- If it was Mexico who had attacked, the camp would be for Mexicans
- The World War 2 was a total war and governments were doing whatever it took to win the war, hence Pearl Harbor and also the atomic bomb.
- Considering how scary World War 2 was, it was just a matter of time until Americans would go paranoid about Japanese spies
The counter arguments are usually:
- America was doing the same thing that it was said to be fighting against
- It was not fair to the families
- Those were also american citizens and the xenophobia is unjustified
- It was a violation of the constitution
- It was morally wrong
Answer:
Germans were furious about the treaty, seeing it as a dlktat, or dictated peace. Kind of like they have bitterly resented the sole blame of war being placed at their feet.
Explanation:
Above.
Parallelism and antithesis are good to use in political speeches because it gives the audience of feel of it being important. Figures of speech such as these two are used to emphasize things and persuade audiences, which is certainly something that Kennedy wanted to achieve.