Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
Because all the animals and people would die and there would be no more resources.
I would strongly suggest indaba. It allows each country to be heard and they can come to a conclusion quickly. They can only voice their opinion in a certain way. A country gives their Red Line in a diplomatic way and the other can respond with their hard limits.
Assuming you're referring to the United States, the Constitution grants these powers only to the federal government--specifically Congress--meaning that the states have no war powers.
The Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)<span> required (for the first time) that someone accused of a crime be </span>informed<span> of his or her constitutional rights prior to interrogation. This protected the rights of the accused, or the defendant, in two new ways: 1) It educated the person about relevant constitutional rights; and 2) It inhibited law enforcement officials from infringing those rights by applying the Exclusionary Rule to any testimony/incriminating statements the defendant made unless he intentionally waived his rights. </span>
<span>The Exclusionary Rule prohibits evidence or testimony obtained illegally or in violation of the constitution from being used against the defendant in court. </span>
<span>The </span>Miranda<span> ruling has been revised somewhat by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. On June 1, 2010, the Roberts' Court released the opinion for </span>Berghuis v. Thompkins,<span> 08-1470 (2010), which held a defendant must </span>invoke<span> his right to remain silent (by stating he wants to remain silent), rather than </span>waive<span>it (by explicitly agreeing to answer questions before interrogation). </span>
<span>C. Advancements in architecture due to better tools</span>
