Answer:
The british
Explanation:
Ameria was formor colony of brits
Answer:
Explanation:
Injustices In Mexico, Hernando Cortes and his conquistadors massacred the Aztecs, and looted their cities in search of gold.
-In Peru, Francisco Pizzaro led an expedition against the Incas, and stole their treasures.
-Native Americans who were not massacred were either enslaved, or died from disease, particularly small pox.
-By the middle of the 16th century, the Aztec and Incan empires fell.
Missionary Help
-The missionaries frequently protested against the conquistadors' unfair treatment of the native peoples.
The Supreme court of the United States has ruled that every criminal has the right to a fair and impartial judge under the Sixth Amendment
In modern America, all defendants have the right to either choose a Judge or a Jury. Most Americans often opt for a jury for their cases, while most misendeavor cases are usually taken care of by a judge.
Answer:
As told in the book <em>"The Thousand and One Nights"</em> the Baghdad of the 8th century was one of the largest cities on the planet. It is said that more than 700,000 people lived there. It was a great political, economic, military, cultural and artistic center.
It was Baghdad with souks, mosques, large palaces, Arab princesses, Tigris merchants bringing and carrying silks and carpets. There were Persian, Aramaic and Greek inhabitants, who were learning and adopting the Arabic language as the main form of communication.
"The power to prevent harmful speech against government" was the power given to Congress by the “clear and present danger” rule.
<u>Option: B</u>
<u>Explanation:</u>
It is a doctrine introduced by the U.S. Supreme Court to decide in which conditions to impose limitations on the First Amendments. This was developed in the Schenck vs. US situation. This was a freedom of speech test so it's not being abused for the country's assault.
The "clear and present danger" principle advocated the use of an improvement test to monitor the state's limits of free speech on a case-by-case basis. If the Court found that there was a "clear and present danger" that the discussion would produce mischief that Congress had taboo, then the state would be legitimized in restricting the discussion at that stage.
