Answer:
The following explains the outcome and significance of the District of Columbia v. Heller case,
The Supreme Court decided in favor of Heller, that the Second Amendment allows law-abiding U.S. citizens to own and carry handguns in the district.
Explanation: In the 2008 landmark Supreme Court Case The District of Columbia v. Heller, it was found that the Second Amendment allows LAW ABIDING citizens to own and carry handguns in the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). This case found the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 as unconstitutional. The Act of 1975 called for handguns used for home and self defense to be unloaded, disassembled, and/or locked.
Islamic armies faced major resistance from cities in the Persian Empire. Islam first developed in Europe and then spread inland through Africa. Islam had its origins in Constantinople before spreading to Arabia.
Answer: The situation is unconstitutional because it is defamation or libel
Explanation: The freedom of the press is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the American Constitution, which regulates all the rights and obligations of the media, including the press. This means that everyone has the right to freely report and write, and freely express their opinions without censorship. However, there are some limitations when it comes to press freedom. There are, among other things, the extent to which the journalist, i.e the writer of the article, can secure the protection of a confidential source, then also indecency. In this our case it is defamation which, when it comes to defamation in the press, calls libel. If Nancy wanted to make up a story about a politician she personally dislikes, then it is defamation. The First Amendment also does not guarantee the journalist the right to interfere personal feelings about the politician with professional writing in the newspaper. This means that if Nancy made up the story of a politician without real evidence of any wrongdoing, then it was defamation in the newspaper, therefore, libel.
Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax".[2]
The Court engaged in the process of judicial review by examining the
plaintiff's claim that the carriage tax was unconstitutional. After
review, the Supreme Court decided the Carriage Act was not
unconstitutional. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison[3]
was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority
for judicial review to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the
end of his opinion in this decision,[4]
Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's
responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary
consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as
instructed in Article Six of the Constitution.
