The British won the battle of Baltimore and Fort McHenry.
One of the reasons of the failure is because it had failed to prevent the Second World War to occur. The purpose of the treaty itself was to stop another big war to exist again on this earth, yet it had unsuccessfully done so. The war still happened and the destruction of it was even larger and more serious than in WWI and other war in history of humankind due to the fact that the technology is increasing, and thus the weapons using are more powerful than ever, for instance, aircrafts, tanks, machine guns, and especially the use of nuclear bombs in Japan to end the war. Consequently, it resulted in dead of 75 million people including 20 million soldiers and 40 million civilians.
Furthermore, the cause of failure of the treaty was because it was lack of the enforcement mechanism and lack of willingness of the allied powers. Many terms stipulated in the treaty were not implemented. For example, the 14 points of President Woodrow Wilson including “1) no more secret treaties, 2) countries must seek to reduce their weapons and their armed forces, 3) national self-determination should allow people of the same nationality to govern themselves and one nationality should not have the power to govern another , 4) all countries should belong to the League of Nations,” and an intention of France in dividing Germany into smaller states did not occur, and thus it just caused the treaty to become weak; as a result, Germany could take the advantages of it.
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.
