The correct answer to this open question is the following.
The question is incomplete. Indeed, here we do not have a question, just a statement. After the statement, the full question must say:<em> "Decide if the situation jeopardizes the government's legitimacy."</em>
What is the situation? The statement above-mentioned.
So the situation is this:
Three top military generals overthrow the country's government. The generals are very popular with the citizens, who cheer by the thousands in streets across the country.
Under this situation, the legitimacy is not jeopardized because it was the people who supported the generals to overthrow the country's government. So we can say that the generals are legit because they received the support of the people and that is why they succeeded. The people believe in them.
Let's remember that in politics, the concept of legitimacy means that the people think that their ruler is the right one, the capable one, and has the support of the citizens.
The other three important concepts of a solid government are Power, Authority, and Sovereignty.
I don't have the proper answer and you might have to do research but America did gain much from the war such as Cuba, The Philipines, and Guam.
On February 25, 200–300 Mexican soldiers crossed the San Antonio River and took cover in abandoned shacks approximately 90 to 100 yards (82 to 91 m) from the Alamo walls. The soldiers intended to use the huts as cover to establish another artillery position, although many Texians assumed that they actually were launching an assault on the fort. Several men volunteered to burn the huts.To provide cover, the Alamo cannons fired grapeshot at the Mexican soldiers, and Crockett and his men fired rifles
The arrest of a criminal suspect.
If you've ever watched a television crime drama, you've heard the "Miranda warning" -- or at least the beginning of it: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney ...." There's a couple more sentences to the warning, but TV shows often cut to the next scene before hearing the arresting officer finish their recitation of the full warning.
Miranda v. Arizona was a Supreme Court case decided in 1966. Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman. He confessed to the crime when interrogated by police, but attorneys argued that he did not fully understand his 6th Amendment rights. After the decision in Miranda v. Arizona, it has become standard procedure in all arrests that the arresting officers must clearly state the accused person's rights -- their "Miranda rights," as they have become known.
The answers should be 1, 4, 6, and 7.
