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.
Answer:
The Seven Years' War was a conflict between France and Great Britain that took place between 1756 and 1763, and faced both European powers and their allies in various territories, including North America.
In North America, both nations had colonies of considerable importance: France had the colony of New France in what is now Quebec, Canada; while Great Britain had its Thirteen Colonies on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean. The two nations were vying for control of the Great Lakes. Thus, when the war broke out, the colonies of both countries faced each other over the disputed territories, ending with the British victory and the cession by France of all the territories of it on the continent.
Even so, the population of Quebec continued to maintain its customs (its Latin culture, its Catholic religion against British Anglicanism and, fundamentally, its French language). This situation was maintained over the years, and today it is possible to observe in Canada a bilingualism at the national level, with the French language being predominant in the province of Quebec, and the English language in the rest of the country.
Answer
British East India Company. It turns out, that India was never originally colonized by the British crown, but by a multinational company (MNC). Robert Clive, who won the Battle Of Palashi (‘Plassey’ for ‘Hey bear, ek gin and tonic idaar!’ folks), was an employee (‘Team Leader’ in 21st-century terms) of the world’s first public limited company. (Britons had equity stakes and to make favorable trading deals, the company ended up having an army.)That hired army ended up ousting the weak-by-then Mughals and accidentally ended up with a nation. Ours. Yes, a large company, so influential and powerful, that it made laws of another nation. The modern equivalent would be if, say, Coca-Cola removed the Chinese premier and started running it. It’s unheard of, mad. But that’s what happened, and that is how I am writing this column in English and you’re reading it in English, both parties pretending as we folks have always been English speakers and writers. All because a bunch of company middle management wanted to protect their investments and threaten some nabobs for their tea and silk and spice and opium trade. And the company’s armies also meted out their version of justice. This begs the question: can a company do that? Today, if you visit the dockland area of London from where the East India Company ships once sailed, hundreds a day to rule Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, there’s a wildlife reserve, a jogging track, an indoor concert hall called the O2 Arena, a bunch of suburban high-rises that look a bit like Whitefield in Bengaluru, and an HSBC call center. Zero signs that it was once the epicenter of the imperial world, ruling 3/4th of the planet with trade.
The sun burnt faces were from Ethiopia
Yes, it is true that t<span>he United States was the first country in the world to utilize a federal form of government, since this is the basis on which the Constitution was written. </span>
