Answer:
A) The act restricted American's freedom of speech
Explanation:
It allowed anyone who said/wrote something against the government to be punished for it.
Answer:
-Because the oldest male was the head of the household, he held powers of life and death over every member of his extended family.
-A Roman woman belonged to either her husband or her father.
-A Roman woman did not have her own full name, just the female version of her father's clan name.
Explanation:
A patriarchal society is a society where men lead the household, so the fact that the oldest male was the head of the household, women belonged to either their father or husband, and a woman took her father's clan name all fall under the of a patriarchal society.
Answer:
The answer is First Amendment rights, connected in light of the extraordinary qualities of the school condition, are accessible to educators and understudies. It can barely be contended that either understudies or instructors shed their established rights to the right to speak freely or articulation at the school building entryway.
Explanation:
This has been the indisputable holding of this Court for right around 50 years. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Barrels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923), this Court, in sentiments by Mr. Equity Reynolds, held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment keeps States from disallowing the instructing of a remote dialect to youthful understudies. Rules to this impact, the Court held, illegally meddle with the freedom of educator, understudy, and parent. [note 2] See additionally Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 [507] (1925); West Virginia v. Barnett, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); McConnell v. Leading group of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195 (1952) (agreeing feeling); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487 (1960); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Keyishian v. Leading group of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967); Epperson v. Arkansas, stake, p. 97 (1968).
Answer:
a
Explanation:
it means fair treatment in law
