The SPCC is what you're referring to; The Society for prevention of Cruelty to Children
I think its b hope this helped ya out!!
Women became restricted by rigid, traditional gender roles.
Answer:
Option: Most people who came seeking gold struck it rich.
Explanation:
California Gold Rush began in 1848, brought more the 300,000 people to California for a search of Gold. The gold rush remained for only seven years in 1855. Finding gold become hard and the trail to California was involved with high risks and probabilities of accidents. Only a few miners made money and struck rich from the Californian Gold Rush.
1- The correct answer is C. In Miranda v. Arizona, the main discussion refers to the guarantee against selfincrimination.
Miranda v. Arizona was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that both incriminating and exculpatory statements made in response to an interrogation by a defendant in police custody are admissible in a trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed before being questioned of what is now it is known as Miranda warning: the right to consult a defense lawyer before and during interrogation, and the right not to self-incriminate. And besides, the defendant should not only understand these rights, but should also give them up voluntarily.
2- The requirements for libel detailed in New York Times v Sullivan protect the principle of judicial review.
The judges must check whether or not there is a actual malice in the statements made by the press before an aggrieved individual. If there were no actual malice, press freedom predominates before the right of individuals.
3- After the Westboro Baptist Church protested the funeral of Matthew Snyder, the Supreme Court ruling in Phelps v. Snyder upheld that the government cannot regulate the content of a protest.
Albert Snyder, the father of a dead Marine, filed a lawsuit against Fred Phelps, his two daughters and the Westboro Baptist Church, who protested at the funeral of his son.
The Court ruled in favor of Fred Phelps, stating that those who speak publicly about a public issue can not be sued for the deliberate infliction of emotional distress, even if the speech in question is insidious or insulting. The verdict was supported by eight judges, while Samuel Alito was opposed.
