The statement the articles of confederation gave a president the power to execute laws and veto legislation is false.
<h3><u>
Explanation:
</u></h3>
The very reason behind opting to replace the "Articles of Confederation" was that they created an imbalance of power by vesting more power in the hands of the state governments. There are no provisions provided by Articles of Confederation for an executive branch.
The President and the Federal government functioned with very little authority and were greatly under powered. The President almost functioned like a nominal head.The legislature holds the executive power under the "Articles of Confederation".
Yes it does, chances are 8/10 but most likely.
Answer:
Posttraumatic growth
Explanation:
In psychology, the term posttraumatic growth refers to the positive personality change that happens as a result of experiencing traumatic life events.
We usually think of traumatic life events as something negative, but actually, some people actually find that a traumatic event can have a transformational role in personality and it facilitates growth.
In this case, Brandon witnessed the attack of a close friend. He then developed a greater appreciation for life, his relationships became more meaningful and he became more involved with his faith. <u>Brandon experienced a traumatic event as a witness of the attack. However, this event had a transformational role in his personality </u>and therefore we can say that this response exemplifies posttraumatic growth.
In later stages of a business , the most common way an entrepreneur could acquire a large amount of funding is by Getting an investor through shares.
By selling their shares, the business is basically giving up some part of its ownership to the shareholders, but it give the entrepreneurs more access to equity
Answer:
D. may ignore Sam's statement and continue asking questions until Sam makes an unambiguous request for an attorney.
Explanation:
Miranda right is also known as Miranda warnings sometimes. It is the right given to a suspect to remain silent and the right to have an attorney.
When an investigator is asking questions to the suspect person for a crime, the Supreme court says that after the suspect waives off the Miranda rights, the investigator can continue to interrogate him until the suspect makes clean and unambiguous request for a lawyer.
Thus in the context, Sam waives off the Miranda rights provided to him and is willing to give answers to the detective's question. But when he is not sure whether he wants a attorney or not, the detective under the Supreme Court rulings, can ignore his request and continue questioning Sam until he makes a clear request to have an attorney for himself.
Hence the answer is--
D. may ignore Sam's statement and continue asking questions until Sam makes an unambiguous request for an attorney.
