Answer: deez nut
Explanation: you like laundry detergent?
1. The man in the cartoon as <span>a baby, teenager, young adult, adult, and elderly man is Uncle Sam. The cartoon refers to the United States of America and its government and how it changed throughout the years. You can deduce who this is by looking at the clothes these people are wearing - red, white, and blue, the same colors as the American national flag.
2. The man represents America, as I said, and its expansionist ideology which started as soon as it got its independence from Britain. America fought for a long time for its freedom from its 'mother' and oppressor, and ever since it got what it wanted, it never stopped growing.
3. I believe the message of the cartoon is that America became corrupted over the years while it was looking to expand its territory. It started off as an innocent child, and ended up being a fat capitalist who only thinks about profit. The artist is showing this decline of values in America.
4. The result is that ironically, while America grew bigger and stronger, it also grew more unemotional and corrupt. You can see the final man's facial expression - he looks fat, content, and evil, having conquered everything that could be conquered and taken it for himself.
5. I would say the artist is definitely opposed to imperialism. Just by taking a look at the progression of these people, from an innocent baby, to a not-so innocent child, to a Napoleonic-looking USA, to the great Lincoln, and finally to a fat, cruel capitalist, you can see that the author believes imperialism and America's expansionist nature led it downwards in regards to values, not money.</span>
"(2) The struggle for women’s rights has spanned <span>many decades" would be the best statement as to what is in common of the headlines, although with certain differences. </span>
Answer:
Try searching up old informercials from the 90's they are great for this type of project
Explanation:
The correct answers are The Fifth and Sixth Amendment
Explanation:
Miranda v. Arizona was a legal case in 1966, in this, Ernesto Miranda accused of kidnapping and sexual abuse confessed during the interrogation, which led to a sentence of about 20 years. However, Miranda was never told he could have counsel or guidance of a lawyer, he could remain in silence, or his words would be used against him, which means he was not informed of his rights and the legal procedure was not followed. Due to this, the Supreme Court determined the trial and process had not been legal and a retrial was necessary.
Moreover, this decision was related to the fifth amendment that protects against self-incrimination including the right to not answer questions against oneself; as well as, the sixth amendment that establishes a public, speedy and fair trial should be guaranteed. Thus, this case addressed the fifth and sixth amendments.
