In every society, the government needs to have what are called police powers. What this means is that the governments need to have the right to uphold the laws. Governments need to have this ability so that they can protect their citizens from others who would seek to prey on them. Without police powers, for example, there is no one to protect us from being murdered or robbed, or otherwise harmed.
The problem is that the government can take away our rights in the process of trying to protect us. For example, let us imagine that the government is worried about drug use. It therefore declares that it has the right to test any person for drug use at any time. It also declares that it has the right to search anyone’s house at any time for evidence of drug manufacture, sale, or use. This would be great for law and order because it would make it much harder to get away with drug crimes, but it would be terrible for our rights.
Answer:
They were called Federalists
Explanation:
Days after the attacks, Bush demanded that the Taliban government in Afghanistan turn over Osama Bin Laden and shut down Al-Qaeda training camps.
Native Americans believe the land belongs to everyone while the Europeans believe of land ownership and claiming land for their countries.
Answer:
This case involves a federal death sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Fields for conviction of a federal capital offense. Fields was sentenced to death largely on the basis of the opinion of a psychiatrist who stated that he could confidently predict Fields would be dangerous in the future. The psychiatrist testified that he did not know of any "standard psychiatric or medical procedures used in arriving at a determination or predicting future dangerousness" and that he was unaware of specific empirical data or studies. He issued his opinion without engaging in any testing or any other objective measures or use of an actuarial method. His basis for this opinion was discussions with the prosecutors and review of some records regarding the defendant. The defense attorney objected to the testimony as unreliable under the standards for expert testimony established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical (i.e., that proffered evidence must be grounded in scientific reasoning or methodology). The district court overruled the objections and allowed the expert testimony to go to the jury.
Explanation:
