<u>Churcill pronounced those words as part of an speech in the Munich Confederence, also known as Munich Betrayal, that took place in 1938.</u>
After intense negotiations, leaders from France and UK allowed nazi Germany to annex the region called "Sudetenland" in Czechoslovakia, by not sending any troops there. Morover, the French-Czechoslovak alliance was dishonoured.
Hitler had already started his policy of "Living Space", which aimed to gain the territories that the supreme German race deserved, according to his Nazi ideology. He had gained control over territories without opposition, and Sudetenland was just another one. This is why Churchill said that Hitler got “them served to him course by course”.
Answer:
The events that took place in the century showed how disadvantageous it was for Filipinos to live under European domination and how big the country could be if it achieved independence and self-control. This generated a strong sense of nationalism and patriotism in Rizal and his countrymen.
Explanation:
In the 19th century Rizal was able to see how productive his country was, how charitable and hardworking his people were and how large and self-sufficient the nation could be. However, the country was exploited by European nations, by an inefficient government that diminished and limited the rights and freedoms of the people. This generated a feeling of nationalism, a patriotism that led him to fight for his land and promote the happiness and dominance of his nation.
Here is some info G....The modern United Kingdom and France, by virtue of most government power being held by the central, national government, are best described as having the unitary form of government
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.
Answer:
C. due to the high percentage of military personnel from the state.
