Hey there!
<u>Understanding what the question is asking:</u>
We understand that the question is asking about that we would have to right or propose a new amendment for the Constitution that would describe or establish a critical 'right' that would not be currently protected by the document, which is the 'bill of rights'. And then, after analyzing this, we would have to consider why this is not being protected. Let's get started!
<u>Answer:</u>
The first amendment that was not protect, was the following: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”
answer.
<u>How?</u>
The reason why this is not protected is because the congress believed that protecting a law the is just a freedom of speech would not need to be protected. Which, in the case, I agree with this also.
But, just because the government can not a make a law about this, they can still handle consequence within court about this.
<span>Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed. Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. It was used to justify both sex discrimination and usage of labor laws. ... The ruling had important implications for protective labor legislation.</span>
I believe the correct answer is: e. effortless production of
meaningless speech.
A primary characteristic of Wernicke's aphasia is effortless
production of meaningless speech, while speech retains a natural-sounding
rhythm and a relatively normal syntax. This condition is caused due to the
injury on Wernicke's area, a link between the left posterior section of the
superior temporal gyrus and the reflexive mimicking of words and their
syllables that associated the sensory and motor images of spoken words.