Answer: They were loyal to the British crown.
Explanation:
its c Edge my ps4 username is MrSkyz0_0
Answer:
B. To seize arms and ammunition stored by the Provincial Congress
Explanation:
It's Fresco. Here is the definition of fresco: a painting done rapidly in watercolor on wet plaster on a wall or ceiling, so that the colors penetrate the plaster and become fixed as it dries.
Someone accused of a crime generally has the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. But a defendant doesn’t have the right to a trial in the county of his choice. Circumstances that make juror impartiality unlikely can, however, arise. In those circumstances, defense attorneys often “move” to have the trial take place somewhere else. (In most states, the prosecution can’t request a change of venue.)
Some state constitutions address the right to a change of venue, but in most states, the issue is left to statutes or court rules. These laws and rules explain how to request a change of venue, and may impose deadlines to file the requisite motion.
Answer:
The Warren Court made decisions regarding segregation and civil liberties. The most famous court decision was Brown v. Board of Education which ended school segregation in America and began a wave of desegregation decisions. These decisions created uproar in the South and cause military intervention at times. Miranda v. Arizona was another famous Warren Court decision which better defined the Fifth Amendment and how a person must be informed on their rights when arrested. These cases were often racial in nature redefining civil liberties and due process of the law.Yes the Warren Court did exceed its boundaries in issuing some of its decisions during the 1960s. For example the court gave its decision regarding women suffrage and it was not taken well by many women of that time. Many women were forced to suffer the consequences of the decision given by the Warren Court in regards to women's suffrage.The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was a joint resolution which the United States Congress passed on August 7, 1964. It gave power to the president to use conventional military force without declaration of war. It basically gave more power to the president then checks and balances allow. In this case for the given question let us assume that it was the executive branch that had taken fore step and became more powerful. If such had happened the power resting upon the head of the society or the president would increase and the chances of being mistake in due to the presence of human emotions and flaws would come into action. The decisions taken by the agencies would be biased and hence the laws that would be made would not necessarily benefits the society. When the US Constitution was written, the States feared a strong Federal Government. Because of the three branches system the US Constitution created a new system that revolutionized Constitutions around the world: the Checks and Balances system. The Checks and Balances system is a system that the US Constitution created to give powers to each of those three branches to limit the power of the other branch. Each branch has typical and atypical powers, and those atypical powers are the ones that are used to limit the typical powers of other branches. Because of that, if any of the three branches exceeds its authority the other branches have the power to stop this power and return the thing to status quo ante. Example of this atypical powers is: The Power of Veto the President has, the Impeachment Power of the Congress and Power the judicial branch has to declare a law unconstitutional. As you can notice, the Constitution created a system that autoregulates itself so that power and democracy are stable. The Warren Court has caused social change but one thing that the warren court has impacted positivily is that it broadened the individual rights of accused criminals. yes there is ups and downs to the warren court and it was a big thing in the 19th century but remembering on how of a impact it was has gave us importance today because any case that had segregation and enough evidence was presented, then a law for segregation would be unconstitutional.
Explanation:
