<span>Without amendments, we are stuck with what some guys thought would be nice over 200 years ago. A few things we took out of the constitution by amendment: Slaves count as 3/5 of a person. The incoming president must wait five months after being elected to take office. Electoral college for senators (now--can we get rid of it for presidents?) We also filled in holes that were evident in the constitution, and clarified more rights that people have. The Bill of Rights is all amendments--they wanted a working government first before they decided what limits to put on it. Women were allowed to vote. Someone figured out that if a president becomes sick but doesn't die, the government is in limbo, because the VP couldn't just do the President's job until an amendment was passed saying how it would be determined the Pres was too sick to do his job. Allowing amendments allows mistakes made by the writers of the constitution to be corrected, and for changes they didn't for see to be allowable.</span>
Answer:
The decisions in Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Mapp v. Ohio are very important to defendants in criminal proceedings today because they enlarged defendants' rights in criminal trials and investigations.
Thus, Miranda v. Arizona refers to the fact that those accused of a crime must know their rights prior to being questioned by the police, that is, that everything they say can be used against them and that they have the right to consult a lawyer.
For its part, Gideon v. Wainwright guaranteed the defendants the right to have a lawyer, even when they could not afford it on their own financial means. In this way, a defendant is not left legally unprotected for not being able to afford a lawyer, since it is the state that grants him one for free.
Finally, Mapp v. Ohio prohibits the use of illegitimately obtained evidence in criminal proceedings. Thus, non-compliance with the Fourth Amendment (and the consequent search without a warrant) renders the evidence obtained in this way not admissible in court.
Rosetta Stone, think of the modern language course
What teaching style is identified with Socrates, and what was it like? The teaching style was the question and answer style also known as the Socratic method. This teaching style was good for the young people because it taught them to think about things harder.
Hoped that helped:)
Unions take advantage of collective bargaining and industrial action to increase their members' wages and otherwise change their working situation. Labor rights can also take in the form of worker's control and worker's self management in which workers have a democratic voice in decision and policy making.
