The President is Commander in Chief of the US military, under Article II of the Constitution, which gives him expansive forces to utilize the military with regards to the United States, and to further its interests globally. (A fascinating reality here is that when working as Commander in Chief, the President really is "exempt from the rules that everyone else follows" as in he can't be obliged by any conventional law go by Congress. That is a result of the Supremacy Clause, which says the Constitution itself is preeminent to any demonstration of Congress. Thus when the President is acting specifically from the Constitution, he is not responsible to Congress.)
President Obama utilized his forces as Commander as a part of Chief to guide the military to chase down and endeavor to catch Osama receptacle Laden, the previous head of al-Qaeda, who arranged and drove the execution of the 9/11/01 fear based oppressor assaults on the World Trade Center in New York City that slaughtered around 3,000 American natives. A group of Navy seals endeavored to catch container Laden at his mystery den in Pakistan, yet receptacle Laden was murdered in the endeavor. Few would differ that for this situation the President utilized his Article II forces to unequivocally deflect future demonstrations of psychological warfare.
Answer:
King explains the just and unjust laws.
Explanation:
In the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by 'Martin Luther King Jr.' wrote defending allegations against him. He explained his motive for the "Civil Rights movement" and why non-violent action was required for the movement to be successful. Dr. King wrote that the attitude of whites towards African Americans was hostile and he was fighting for their rights. He used rhetorical devices to claim that his actions are correct, and they are not illegal.
He said that disobeying one law doesn't means it is immoral. He justified himself that non-violent ways of protesting is legal as he says asks the question, “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?".
Answer:
C.
Explanation:
Opportunity cost is the forgone benefit that would have been derived from an option not chosen. In this case, the lost is the potential profit they might make, which is C.
Answer:
bill of rights
Explanation:
list of guaranteed rights that cannot be taken by the government
The answer would be Person Vs Person because the fishermans wife just wanted more and more from him not thinking about him at all just herself...and there was no other charater in the story but the fish, but the fish was giving the man gifts so he wouldn't be the problem so the wife was the conflict in the story that's why it would be Husband Vs Wife.
I hoped this helped!
Have a great day/night! :)
