Answer:
D. Declared that wearing a black armband to protest the Vietnam War was a form of symbolic speech. Declared that political spending was a form of protected free speech.
Explanation:
These two statements express two policy-creating decisions that can be considered to be relatively equivalent. Both of these statements deal with the subject of free speech, one of the most important concepts in our government. Moreover, both of these decisions came as a result of a Supreme Court case. In the case of the first one, this was the decision <em>Tinker v. Des Moines ( 1969)</em>. In the case of the second one, this came due to the case<em> Citizens United v. FEC (2010)</em>.
Answer:
All three amendments secured rights for African Americans.
Explanation:
Answer:
in this picture, we see that the donkeys(Democrats) have a color chart for who they do and do not let into the the country, we see a Hispanic person standing at the border gate with his skin shade asking the question, Seriously?, we see that with the current U.S. policies, we are highly judgemental on skin colors.
Explanation:
Answer:
A. both Jonathan's and Joanna's cases
Explanation:
Legal implication: The term "legal implication" is described as a phenomenon that is considered as the consequences or results in which an individual in being involved something inappropriate according to the specific law. Legal implications can either be negative or positive.
Ethical implication: The term "ethical implication" is described as a phenomenon in which various matter is being considered based on an ethical viewpoint. It is considered as the human principle based on wrong and right.
In the question above, the correct answer is A.