Answer:
A. the “Massive Resistance” speech.
Explanation:
Answer:
This question is really geared more towards your own interpretation, so there isn't necessarily going to be a right or wrong answer. I would say that today the first amendment protects when people are speaking out against policies and general injustices in the American society today, and for instance, on social media I have seen people say "f trump and f america." The first amendment is protecting them, so that nobody can hold that statement against them and press charges. If we lived in russia, the russian secret police would find you, and kill you for that. Personally, I believe that if someone wanted to burn an american flag on their front lawn, and curse america, they should not be protected by the first amendment. that should be a crime. However, the first amendment does protect them, so there is nothing anyone could do about that legally.
Explanation:
I assume you mean during world war 2 what was one of the first places Germany invaded which if that's the case it would be Poland
Answer:
A: A concurring opinion agrees with the majority opinion; a dissenting opinion disagrees with it.
Explanation:
Dissenting opinions serve several purposes. They can help to achieve an appeal review of the case by the full court or by recovering the case materials, verify and clarify issues for a subsequent appeal. With their help, it is possible to achieve the adoption of legislation to make up for possible shortcomings in the rule of law. Dissenting opinions can also help narrow the scope of the decision by pointing out the possible dangers of the majority position, or inform other judges and the bar attorneys about the limitations of any decision and its effect on similar cases in the future. Thus, dissenting opinions can serve as a useful tool in bringing important information to the attention of those interested in judicial decisions and to promote the development of law
.
Concurring opinions are appropriate when they are aimed at achieving greater accuracy in the issue of the impact of the decision, or in this way informing the parties and other audience about important points in the opinion of the author. Thus, judges can give concurring opinions in the case when there are two reasons for the decision, and the majority justifies its decision only on the basis of one of them, and the other judges consider that alternative reasons must also be indicated. The concurring opinion shall include an indication of the reasons for agreeing with the majority opinion. The point is not to present an alternative opinion to the majority opinion, but to indicate the point of difference with it and further outline the contours of the decision.
