Answer:
Compare and contrast France's declaration of the rights of man to England's bill of rights.
Explanation:
France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and the Bill of Rights are based on the identical beliefs of natural rights. Both documents are related to guarding the people's natural rights. The Bill of Rights defended the rights of each individual by establishing a government. Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen established equality among men.
The Bill of Rights differs from the Declarations of Rights of Man and Citizen because of the different economic and social institutions. The Bills Of Rights protect people through the government. The Rights of Man and Citizen addresses the individual's equality before the law.
Answer:
physical movement and juxtaposition movement
Explanation
Explanation:
The War of Reform (Spanish: Guerra de Reforma) in Mexico, during the Second Federal Republic of Mexico, was the three-year civil war (1857–1860) between members of the Liberal Party who had taken power in 1855 under the Plan of Ayutla, and members of the Conservative Party resisting the legitimacy of the government and its radical restructuring of Mexican laws, known as La Reforma. The Liberals wanted to eliminate the political, economic, and cultural power of the Catholic church as well as reduce the role of the Mexican Army. Both the Catholic Church and the Army were protected by corporate or institutional privileges (fueros) established in the colonial era
Answer:
The decisions in Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Mapp v. Ohio are very important to defendants in criminal proceedings today because they enlarged defendants' rights in criminal trials and investigations.
Thus, Miranda v. Arizona refers to the fact that those accused of a crime must know their rights prior to being questioned by the police, that is, that everything they say can be used against them and that they have the right to consult a lawyer.
For its part, Gideon v. Wainwright guaranteed the defendants the right to have a lawyer, even when they could not afford it on their own financial means. In this way, a defendant is not left legally unprotected for not being able to afford a lawyer, since it is the state that grants him one for free.
Finally, Mapp v. Ohio prohibits the use of illegitimately obtained evidence in criminal proceedings. Thus, non-compliance with the Fourth Amendment (and the consequent search without a warrant) renders the evidence obtained in this way not admissible in court.
<span>It used U-boats to sin ships carrying supplies to Britain</span>
