Walpole always denied that he was "prime minister", and throughout the 18th century parliamentarians and legal scholars continued to deny that any such position was known to the Constitution. George II and George III made strenuous efforts to reclaim the personal power of the monarch, but the increasing complexity and expense of government meant that a minister who could command the loyalty of the Commons was increasingly necessary. The long tenure of the wartime prime minister William Pitt the Younger (17831801), combined with the mental illness of George III, consolidated the power of the post. The title was first referred to on government documents during the administration of Benjamin Disraeli but did not appear in the formal British Order of precedence until 1905.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What monarch gave more power to the prime minister?
Ah, so.. unanswerable

Citing the inability of the Joint Commission to make progress, the U.S. government decided to hold an election under United Nations auspices with the aim of creating an independent Korea. The Soviet authorities and the Korean Communists refused to co-operate on the grounds it would not be fair, and many South Korean politicians also boycotted it. A general election was held in the South on 10 May 1948. It was marred by terrorism and sabotage resulting in 600 deaths. North Korea held parliamentary elections three months later on 25 August.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What problems did the elections face?
Ah, so.. terrorism and sabotage

The Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What Supreme Court case ruled that a treaty provision that conflicts with the US Constitution is null and void under US law?
Ah, so..
Reid v. Covert