No the Declaration of Independence was not intended to be a formal declaration of war since "<span>There was no need to declare war, as this power had yet to be established" and because it was implied. </span>
Answer:
Alexander the Great did not conquer India
Hope this helps :)
The Treaty of Paris signed in 1763, was the end of the "French-Indian war", a conflict which took place among three major powers at the time : France, Britain and Spain which fought for the colonies in North America. These powers had Native American tribes allied with each one of them and it is called "French - Indian War" because the British considered the French and the Natives to be their enemies.
Spain might have contemplated this as a victory as it expanded its territories to the east, adding territories to their already vast empire of South and Central America. France basically lost their territories in North America,and their interest of exploiting natural resources such as furs. Finally, although British and Americans expanded their territories to the west, this entreprise was greatly expensive for Britain.
Boats and ships are mainly over seas and on land is mainly carages
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.
