<h3>
Answer: The closest -at least formally- I can think of is Argentina.
</h3>
It is a Presidentialist federal republic, comprised by autonomous Provinces and a Federal Capital, the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires.
Each province has de jure all the powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution (if this situation happens de facto I can’t really say), but unlike US states, they don’t have their own militias (I understand each State’s National Guard is a reserve under State control unless federalized)
Explanation:
Answer: The image show's how the United states and Canada developed
from shipping supplies over seas
Explanation:
Answer:
may be England because it was really a ruling country since the time immemorial
Answer:
The correct answer to the following question will be "Miranda v. Arizona
".
Explanation:
- During this case, the Supreme Court held that offenders who were arrested must always be told regarding their constitutional right to such an advocate as well as against actualization-incrimination after interrogation.
- This allowed suspected offenders to consult their rights and freedoms before being interviewed while being in detention by the officers.
<span>By the late 1940s, I believe the aspect of leadership was focused majority on the premise that leadership is dependent on the behavioral of one person given different situations. One may exhibit leadership skill for a given situation but may not show the same leadership skill if will be given a different situation. It is sort of a "situational leadership skill".</span>
