It should be noted that driving slower in the left lane is a violation of traffic law because laws don't permit driving slower in the left lane.
<h3>Traffic lane</h3>
Driving slower in the left lane is a violation of traffic law, as the laws don't permit drivers to drive slower in the left lane. Slower driving can be exercised in the right lane.
Also, the drivers cannot follow the practice of driving slower than the surrounding speed of other cars, as it makes the road dangerous and is therefore punishable with appropriate fines and penalties.
Learn more about traffic laws on:
brainly.com/question/8890043
This law is unlikely to be constitutional.
The Miranda warning is a type of notification that is given to criminal suspects who are in custody. This warning advises them of their right to remain silent, and that they are allowed to refuse answering questions or providing information to authorities. A case precedent that would support this instance is <em>Berkemer v. McCarty (1984)</em>. In this case, it was established that a person stopped, even for a misdemeanour, should receive the protections of the Fifth Amendment once in custody, regardless of how serious the offense is.
Answer:
<em>Yes, I still don't have friends because I'm Mexican Haha :(</em>
Explanation:
<h2>but I love my country ♥ </h2>
Answer:
Mark me as brainlist
Explanation:
The original Constitution of 1788 contained very few specific restrictions on the ways in which the power of the national government could be exercised against the people. It guaranteed the right to trial by jury in criminal (but not civil) cases, placed limits on prosecutions and punishments for treason, forbade bills of attainder (laws aimed at particular persons) and ex post facto laws (laws that punished conduct that was legal when it happened), limited any restrictions on habeas corpus to certain designated emergencies, and prohibited the granting of titles of nobility. But the Constitution that emerged from the 1787 Constitutional Convention contained nothing like a comprehensive bill of rights. Most state constitutions of the time had bills of rights, and many citizens—and members of the Constitutional Convention—expected the new national constitution to have one as well. Nonetheless, the state delegations at the Constitutional Convention voted 10-0 against including a bill of rights in the Constitution.
