Some people have argued that while other groups were persecuted, the Holocaust was a primarily Jewish experience. Do you agree or disagree with this assessment? Explain
your response

answer: what events

explanation:

you dont have any choices

it for the workers lik if you have a job thats what its for

explanation:

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is

president carter called the victims of kidnapping "victims of terrorism and anarchy" and added that the united states was not going to give in to blackmail. in the united states, they see hostage-taking as an outrage on the part of the islamist movement that violated the principle of international law on the immunity and inviolability of diplomats and their embassies.

carter refused to yield to the demands, khomeini used the situation to consolidate his power and nullify the challenges of the moderate wing of his government, headed by its president. the euphoria over the humiliation of the most powerful nation distracted the iranian people from the economic difficulties of their country. carter, in april 1980, broke diplomatic relations with iran and imposed a trade embargo, except medicine and food. iranian funds in the us they were frozen and accounted for to compensate the hostages when they were released and to pay the demands of us companies against iran.