The absence of humanitarian concerns influence the treatment of slaves during the slave trade in a very cruel way and slaves were mistreated.
<u>Explanation:</u>
During the time of slavery, the slave owners did not consider the slaves to be humans. They treated the slaves in a very bad way and in a cruel way. The slave owners did not even give the basic rights to the slaves under them.
The slaves were also abused during the time of slave trade. During the time of slavery, there was no humanitarian concerns and it was the basis of the slavery.
Answer: Upheld the right of the newspapers to print the document.
New York Times Co. v. United States was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1971. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without censorship.
The question was whether the freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was subordinate to the need to maintain secrecy as stated by the executive branch, President Nixon. The court claimed that the First Amendment protected the freedom of press of the newspapers.
<h2>
Question:</h2>
UNO has a major role in establishing peace in the world. How?
<h2>
Answer:</h2>
The UN does this by working to prevent conflict helping parties in conflict make peace; peacekeeping; and creating the conditions to allow peace to hold and flourish. The UN Security Council has the primary responsibility for international peace and security.
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.
Yepp that's truth. Mesopotamia will be live but America will be under water.
