A true the military force protected the United nation
Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, both Italian-Americans, were convicted of robbery and murder.
<h2>The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti</h2>
<h3>What happened to Nicola Sacco & Bartolomeo Vanzetti?</h3>
Despite worldwide demonstrations in support of their innocence, Italian-born anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti are executed for murder. On April 15, 1920, a paymaster for a shoe company in South Braintree, Massachusetts, was shot and killed along with his guard.
Learn more about Nicola sacco and bartolomeo vanzetti here: brainly.com/question/3423790
#SPJ2
I believe it’s answer B, some context would be great though
Answer: Choice D) Its high unemployment rate
==========================================================
Explanation:
Ideally you should do external research to get the answer, but luckily we can eliminate non-answers to narrow things down.
- Choice A is false because having a skilled labor force and foreign investments means that the country is diversified to withstand an economic storm. Sure there is still likely a recession, but recovery would be fairly quick if choice A was the case.
- Choice B is a similar idea. Having modern industrial policies means the workforce is agile and flexible, and in turn there's low unemployment. Ideally the environment would be an issue as well. This is why we can rule out choice B.
- Choice C can be ruled out because a high GDP is the opposite of what it means to have a slow recovery. High GDP means the country is producing a lot of goods and services, and the standard of living is expected to be high. In short, the recovery is either strong or already over when high GDP occurs.
In summary: Choices A, B, and C can be eliminated.
The only thing left is choice D. Having high unemployment is one factor that leads to slow recovery. This makes sense because people without a job aren't able to contribute to the economic output of a country.
The correct answer is B.
Clinton v. New York was a decision enacted by the US Supreme Court in 1998, which stated that the line-item veto violated the Presentment Clause and, therefore, the US Constitution.
The line-item veto had been introduced by the Line Item Veto Act in 1996 and it allowed the chief of the executive power, the President, to veto fragments or provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill. In opposition, the Presentment Clause describes the procedure through which bills originating in Congress, become federal US law. Such procedures only contemplate the president's power or rejecting an entire bill.
