Churchill had a claim that could have prevented Germany from taking the Sudetenland, and this claim was:
- They could have joined forces with France so that they could be safer.
<h3>What is a claim?</h3>
A claim is an assertion that something is a case and typically with no evidence or proof to back it up.
In Churchill's claim, he offered NO evidence for it.
Read more about <em>Germany</em> here:
brainly.com/question/24909197
B. i think... yea it should be.
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:
The answer is below
Explanation:
“Government that begin by burning books end by burning people" is quote that is made popular by Heinrich Heine, a German of Jewish origin, who wrote in one of his book that "Where they burn books, they will, in the end, burn human beings too". This implies that, the purpose of burning books is to delete permanently the knowledge and history in the book. However, book is just a medium, and people can still pass the knowledge and history through other means, then, those burning the books, will eventually burn people to eradicate the knowledge and history inside the book completely.
Hence, it relates to democracy, because democracy is a form of government that prohibits oppression and encourage expression of the citizens regardless of class, hence, should any democratic government intends to silence people's opinions and voices, by burning their books or written thoughts on subject matter affecting the country, will eventually burn the people giving out those thoughts, that is by silencing them, jailing them or killing them completely, to eliminate and remove their knowledge from the public.
<span>Lack of food and creating relations with the local Native American tribes.
Food supplies from the trip were low upon arrival and without established farming settlements, the English struggled to grow food and find food sources. The ground was difficult and different requiring new farming techniques.
To learn farming in the new world, settlers had to rely on relationships with Native Americans. This was difficult with language and cultural differences. Also the English had a long history of not wanting to work with other cultures and therefore would rather stay isolated from the tribes instead of integrate like the French and Spanish did. </span>
