I believe they would be named historians.<span />
Answer:
They wanted a unanimous vote.
Explanation:
It was to include all the other colonies too
Answer:
There are many pros and cons to this concept.
The pros are that we have better materials for protection and offense for our military. Also, this gives individuals better defense, as well.
The cons to this concept is that people in the wrong state of mind can easily injure or worse kill vulnerable people.
So what does this say about the United States in general?
The United States is like a pan balance; if there aren’t many weapons, there will be fewer massacres, shootings and robberies. But, say someone in a situation where that does happen, there is a higher and unfortunate chance that they won’t be able to protect themselves. If there are lots of weapons, there will be more crime, but also an increase in defense & protection and a decrease in vulnerability.
The United States is full of extremely intelligent people which can have dangerous consequences. An increase in weapons technology is another step up in nature and it shows America’s power, brilliance, and intelligence. This will make the U.S. military undefeatable.
If you view states as unitary actors, you assume competing national interest groups have to work to create a unitary national interest.
Answer: Option A
<u>Explanation:
</u>
The unitary entertainer presumption treats states as a solitary element that attempts to boost national interest, extensively characterized. Hence, can find the political separation between the leaders and the citizens.
(Along these lines, "national interest" could mean the states are exceptionally big-hearten). While such cleavages surely exist, they will exist at the same time with the issues and so many problems
.
