Answer: The situation is unconstitutional because it is defamation or libel
Explanation: The freedom of the press is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the American Constitution, which regulates all the rights and obligations of the media, including the press. This means that everyone has the right to freely report and write, and freely express their opinions without censorship. However, there are some limitations when it comes to press freedom. There are, among other things, the extent to which the journalist, i.e the writer of the article, can secure the protection of a confidential source, then also indecency. In this our case it is defamation which, when it comes to defamation in the press, calls libel. If Nancy wanted to make up a story about a politician she personally dislikes, then it is defamation. The First Amendment also does not guarantee the journalist the right to interfere personal feelings about the politician with professional writing in the newspaper. This means that if Nancy made up the story of a politician without real evidence of any wrongdoing, then it was defamation in the newspaper, therefore, libel.
At the beginning of the great war, many people were actually enthusiastic about the war (and at least supported it), which was fuelled by nationalism ( and the desire to prove themselves better than other nations) and perhaps hopes for territory gain; at the time it was not known that the Great War would come with such a great loss of life.
Appeals are decided by panels of three judges. The court of appeals does not receive additional evidence or hear witnesses; rather the judges make their decision based on the written record of the case in the trial court, the briefs submitted by the parties, and possibly oral argument.
The answer is "<span>the nouveau riche".
Nouveau riche" refers to a term, typically disdainful, to portray those whose riches has been gained inside their own age, as opposed to by familial legacy. Nouveau riche individuals are individuals from a low social class who have as of late turned out to be exceptionally rich and get a kick out of the chance to demonstrate this openly by spending a considerable measure of cash.
</span>
I believe the answer is would be included in Category 1.
Incidents category 1 would automatically treated as the main priority in the incident management because it considered to expose the country with the most potential danger. (because it usually <span>seriously degrades unit operational or training )</span>
