Preguntas sobre ejemplos de oraciones con, y la definición y uso de "Constitution"
El significado de "Constitution" en varias frases y oraciones
Q:
¿Qué significa Constitution interpretation ?
A:
It's an analysis of the concstitution.
Q:
¿Qué significa The English-translated Japanese Constitution begins with : "We, the Japanese people, ...". Why didn't they stipulate "We the people of Japan...", like the Constitution of the United States ? Would you come up with any possible explanation??
A:
I don't know why the former translation was chosen but "the Japanese people" sounds more collective than "the people of Japan." "The Japanese people" is a collective noun phrase referring to all Japanese. If it were "we Japanese people" then it would imply each individual but it would be very informal. "the people of Japan" is less collective and could/does easily imply all the individual people. "The people of Japan" could refer to the individuals or at a stretch to the collective, people as a whole. I would use "the people of Japan" and I don't think it sounds any less modern.
Q:
¿Qué significa Constitution in "In the district, there's a pileup on Constitution" / "We are totally stuck on Constitution."?
A:
I think maybe Constitution is the name of the street.
"there's a pile up" means there's a car accident (with cars that hit each other)
stuck on Constitution: means cars cannot move because of the accident and the traffic.
"there's a pile up" means there's a car accident (with cars that hit each other)
stuck on Constitution: means cars cannot move because of the accident and the traffic.
Traducciones de "Constitution"
Q:
¿Cómo dices esto en Inglés (US)? Constitution
A:
Revisa la pregunta para ver la respuesta
Q:
¿Cómo dices esto en Inglés (UK)? Constitution
A:
Revisa la pregunta para ver la respuesta
Q:
¿Cómo dices esto en Inglés (US)? Constitution
A:
Revisa la pregunta para ver la respuesta
Otras preguntas sobre "Constitution"
Q:
Regarding
"If the Constitution "prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government could not preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documentary materials are available."(4th paragraph)
I am confused.
Does it mean if the Constitution prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government was obligated to throw away updated evidence???
Context>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Justice Department attorneys prosecuting Roger Stone -- who no longer work under special counsel Robert Mueller -- defended the special counsel's investigation of President Donald Trump Friday, saying it inherently did not hamper his ability to lead the country.
The argument came amid a series of filings Friday night in Stone's case, in which prosecutors pushed back on the longtime Trump ally's legal attacks on Mueller and the criminal charges he faces. Stone has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and asked the court to dismiss them.
"While the Department of Justice's position is that 'the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,' it also takes the position that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible," the prosecutors wrote.
If the Constitution "prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government could not preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documentary materials are available. Nor, it would seem, could the government conduct an investigation that may clear the President of alleged wrongdoing."
"If the Constitution "prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government could not preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documentary materials are available."(4th paragraph)
I am confused.
Does it mean if the Constitution prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government was obligated to throw away updated evidence???
Context>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Justice Department attorneys prosecuting Roger Stone -- who no longer work under special counsel Robert Mueller -- defended the special counsel's investigation of President Donald Trump Friday, saying it inherently did not hamper his ability to lead the country.
The argument came amid a series of filings Friday night in Stone's case, in which prosecutors pushed back on the longtime Trump ally's legal attacks on Mueller and the criminal charges he faces. Stone has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and asked the court to dismiss them.
"While the Department of Justice's position is that 'the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,' it also takes the position that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible," the prosecutors wrote.
If the Constitution "prevented any investigation of a President or his campaign while he was in office, the government could not preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documentary materials are available. Nor, it would seem, could the government conduct an investigation that may clear the President of alleged wrongdoing."
A:
I think this is just very poorly worded, and that's why it's confusing. A more proper wording, instead of "the government could not preserve", would have been "the government might not preserve" or "the government could choose not to preserve".
EDIT: fixed typo
EDIT: fixed typo
Q:
¿Esto suena natural? Constitution exists to bind and restrict the authority, preventing them from abusing their rights.
A:
"the constitution exists to" or "constitutions exist to"
Q:
¿Esto suena natural? According to the current Constitution, in order to hold a national referendum for its revision, a two-thirds majority of all the legislators of both houses is required. The result of the referendum is decided by a simple majority of the valid vote; there is no regulation about required minimum voting rate.
A:
Since constitution is still the subject in the second part of the sentence, you could replace it with a pronoun: "...in order to hold a referendum for its revision...". This could be ambiguous if there were a sentence before this with a different subject, but if this sentence is alone it's fine. At any rate, either way is acceptable.
Significados y uso de palabras y frases similares
Nuevas palabras
constitution
HiNative es una plataforma para que los usuarios intercambien su conocimiento sobre distintos idiomas y culturas.
Newest Questions
- ¿Qué significa Gracias diosito te bending a hoy y siempre?
- ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre Hola Has solicitado y Hola has solicitado ?
- ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre Has y has ?
- ¿Cómo dices esto en Español (México)? merhaba
- ¿Cómo dices esto en Español (México)? Hi, have you applied for any government grant help this year?
Newest Questions (HOT)
- ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre Hola Has solicitado y Hola has solicitado ?
- ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre Es listo y Esta listo ?
- Leí más de la novela de ciencia ficción "Aventura en el Planeta Misterioso" para practicar españo...
- ¿Qué significa panista?
- ¿Pronuncias la 's' más como 'shu' y la 'd' de 'lado' más como 'lao' o como una 'd' suave?
Trending questions
- how can I discribe black people hair, can I say curly, the books don't teach us..
- ¿Qué significa send nudes ?
- “감사하겠습니다”and “감사드리겠습니다” 무슨 차이가 있어요?
- só possui esses batchim duplos: ㄹㄱ-ㅂㅅ-ㄴㅈ-ㄹㄱ-ㄹㅎ- ㄴㅎ-ㄹㅌ-ㄹㅁ-ㄹㅍ-ㄹㄱ- ㄹㄱ-ㄴㅎ-ㅂㅅ-ㄹㅁ-ㄹㅂ- ㄴㅈ-ㄱㅅ?
- ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre The people sitting in priority seats on trains may have invisible di...