Uh, no. The US invaded Mexico in 1848. The Spanish-American War took place in 1898 and did not involve Mexico since Mexico had been independent of Spain since 1810.
Why is the police officer who claimed that Hunt caused a driver to slam on his brakes not being prosecuted for perjury?
Why does the game ship only within the US?
The land that the settlements are built on is in almost all cases state land. It has not been stolen from anyone. If you refer to sovereignty, Judea and Samaria are not "Palestinian land". Had the Arabs accepted the UN partition plan, they might have been, but they did not. No Palestinian state was ever created. Furthermore, neither the League of Nations mandate, which remains the governing law, nor the UN partition resolution, intended Jews to be unable to live in Judea and Samaria. Indeed, both explicitly anticipated Jews remaining there, just as Arabs remained in Israel. The claim that the settlements are illegal under the Geneva Conventions is false not only because Judea and Samaria are not the occupied territory of some state, which is the situation the conventions assume, but because what is illegal is the forced resettlement of a population, not voluntary settlement.
The internal matter is the location of Israel's capital in Jerusalem. Whether or not a separate Palestinian state is created has nothing to do with whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Your inferences are therefore unfounded.
In any case, Israel is not the barrier to the creation of a second Palestinian Arab state. (Jordan is of course the first as it encompasses 2/3 of Palestine and the majority of its population is Palestinian.) The Arabs rejected the creation of a Palestinian state in 1948. They could easily have created one prior to 1967 when Gaza, Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem were under their control. They have been offered a state several times since 1967, but have always rejected it. Their own policy statements indicate that what they actually want is the destruction of Israel. They are opposed to the two-state solution.
The Charter also says that the UN lacks jurisdiction over internal matters. Resolutions are not binding on matters outside the jurisdiction of the UN.
The Security Council is a purely political organization. It does not operate as a judicial body and does not make decisions based on law.
Judea and Samaria are not, as a matter of law or ethics, exclusive Arab territory. Indeed, the League of Nations Mandate, the Balfour Declaration, the agreement with King Faisal, and the UN partition resolution all anticipated that Jews would live in Judea and Samaria. The current proposal for apartheid, with only Arabs in the "Palestinian state", has no basis in law. Nor are the settlements illegal. But, to answer your question, the UN partition plan, which Israel accepted but the Arabs rejected, gave the Arabs more than they had after the 1949 Armistice and internationalized Jerusalem. Subsequent Israeli offers have been for almost all of Judea and Samaria, with small swaps of territory, and in one case even included East Jerusalem.
The Palestinians are not interested in peace. They've turned down multiple offers of a state and have repeatedly stated that their real purpose is the destruction of Israel. They pointlessly demand Jerusalem as their capital. They haven't satisfied their obligations under the Oslo Accords; why expect them to live up to a peace treaty? The peace process is a farce - it has produce nothing other than the release of terrorists. It makes sense to have a neutral broker when there are two sides to a dispute and both would like to resolve it. There is no point when one side does not want to resolve the dispute and has no case.
No, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The Knesset, the Supreme Court, the President's office, and the various Ministries are all in Jerusalem. When the representatives of a country whose embassy is in Tel Aviv want to meet with the Israel government, they have to go to Jerusalem. The location of a country's capital is not up to other countries. What you mean is that many other countries are opposed to Jerusalem being the capital of Israel.
Furthermore, the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital was not due to Trump. Congress recognized Jerusalem as the capital in 1995 by a large, bipartisan margin. Trump merely reiterated the existing policy of the United States and went ahead with the long delayed decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem.
It would be interesting to see exactly what Israel has requested be taken down. What Israel usually calls "incitement" is not news but explicit calls for terrorism and/or rioting, such as those frequently issued by the Palestinian Authority, the various terrorist groups (Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad), and the preachers at Al-Aqsa mosque. Such calls for violence are not protected by the First Amendment in the United States, but requests to take them down as inappropriate are routinely rejected by Facebook in the United States. Indeed, the Palestinian Authority is required by the Oslo Accords to suppress "incitement", an obligation which it frequently violates.
I don't like censorship, but this article does not convince me that Israel is censoring news or legal political expression.
It is possible that clothing designs are included in spite of the fact that they are not currently protected because she wants them to be. Some people in the fashion industry have raised this ill-advised possibility.
I predict a surge in Macedonian talk radio.
If the problem is that the system doesn't support complex queries, they can simply release the entire data set in some standard form and let other people load it into their more capable query systems. It is hard to imagine that they don't have such an export capability, and as far as I can see there is nothing confidential about such data, so they would need to do little or no redaction.
I wonder what they think of "Moose Drool", a beer made in Montana.
Why not simply repeal Section 1201? That will eliminate the problems. Infringement will still be infringment - copyright holders just won't have this additional dubious tool for preventing it.
Uh, actually, the animal trails were laid down by animals, such as cows, not by Native Americans.
She need not have seen the manuscript to take this action. As his ex-wife, there is a good chance that he told her about his childhood himself.
Actually, federal courts do have guns. They can use federal marshalls to enforce their decisions, and federal marshalls are most certainly armed.
I'm surprised that authors of the law providing access did not anticipate this tactic and include in the bill a provision forbidding the destruction of records.