The correct answers are The Fifth and Sixth Amendment
Explanation:
Miranda v. Arizona was a legal case in 1966, in this, Ernesto Miranda accused of kidnapping and sexual abuse confessed during the interrogation, which led to a sentence of about 20 years. However, Miranda was never told he could have counsel or guidance of a lawyer, he could remain in silence, or his words would be used against him, which means he was not informed of his rights and the legal procedure was not followed. Due to this, the Supreme Court determined the trial and process had not been legal and a retrial was necessary.
Moreover, this decision was related to the fifth amendment that protects against self-incrimination including the right to not answer questions against oneself; as well as, the sixth amendment that establishes a public, speedy and fair trial should be guaranteed. Thus, this case addressed the fifth and sixth amendments.
The piece of legislation that helped to expand the middle class was the<em> Civil Rights Act. </em>
He has refused to pass other Laws for the
accommodation of large districts of
people, unless those people would
relinquish the right of Representation in
the Legislature, a right inestimable to
them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the
most wholesome and necessary for the
public good.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the
accommodation of large districts of
people, unless those people would
relinquish the right of Representation in
the Legislature, a right inestimable to
them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at
places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant
from the depository of their Public Records
He has obstructed the Administration of
Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for
establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his
Will alone for the tenure of their offices,
and the amount and payment of their Salaries.
17. Credibility gap, C is the answer
