Prescription medicines can impair a drivers reaction so true
Answer:
9 songs
Explanation:
It is giving that;
The slideshow is 31 whole number 1/2 minutes long
convert to an improper fraction
31×2+1/2 = 63/2
The songs are each 3 whole number 1/2 minutes long
convert to an improper fraction
3×2+1/2 = 7/2
To find the number of songs that Marcus is picking to play during a slideshow, divide the slideshow by the long of one song
(63/2) / (7/2)
= 9 songs.
The two other answers to this question are spot on, but I'm going to interpret this question in a different way. I'm going to answer it as if the question said "Who was the first presidential style Prime Minister of UK?"
I would argue that there have been two 'Presidents of the United Kingdom': Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.
For the first eight years of her administration, Margaret Thatcher was effectively 'the President of the United Kingdom'. Her administration was able to do things most post war PMs were not able to do, possibly buoyed by the large mandates she was given by the British public in 1979 and 1983.
Given the landslide election of 1997, it became almost impossible for the Conservative party to win the 2001 election, and very unlikely that would would have much of a chance in 2005 (Michael Portillo's words, not just mine). With this sort of a political landscape and public mandate, Blair was able to govern as a de-facto president, allowing him to push through parliament decisions that didn't have, not only, the public's backing but even the backing of much of the Labour party. This can be seen in Blair's decisions regarding Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11.
Answer:
"Opponents of the War Powers Resolution have traditionally claimed that clause 11 confers upon Congress only a narrow piece of war power. Defenders of the Resolution have argued in contrast that the Resolution constitutes an exercise of congressional authority under the clause. This last contention pokes at the truth without quite striking it. The War Powers Resolution is not constitutional as an exercise of the war power. It is constitutional because it defines the war power. The War Powers Resolution is nothing more or less than a congressional definition of the word "war" in article I. A definition of this kind coupled with a reasonable enforcement mechanism is well within the power of Congress under a proper understanding of the constitutional system of checks and balances. The definition does not intrude on any presidential prerogative. The mechanisms chosen by Congress to enforce the provisions of the Resolution were reasonable in 1973 and, although matters have been complicated by the United States Supreme Court's decision late last Term in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, those mechanisms remain reasonable today."
Explanation:
