Answer:
3 basic rights.
1.Religious freedom
2. Freedom of speach
3. Freedom of the press
Explanation:
All of our rights even inalianable rights come with limits.
The only right that has no limits is the freedom of thought which is the same as religious freedom. You have the right to think and believe anything. But even that has restrictions on how you can act on your beliefs. Your religious beliefs are not a license to do anything related to that belief. You can't engage in human sacrifice as a ritual for the belief. You can't hide behind your religous beliefs as a sheild against prosecution for murder.
"Freedom of religion embraces two concepts, -freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things the second cannot be. ~ <em>Cantwell v Connecticut.</em>
<em />
The freedom of speach also has limits. You can say anything but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Doing so could cause a stampede and endanger the lives of others. Likewise, we have an impeachment case before the Senate right now in which the former president incited a riot at the Capital complex that caused the death of 6 people. The question before the Senate is did the former President incite a riot causing death and destruction of public property?
The freedom of the press is a first amendment right. But that doesn't give a publisher the right to slander or print falsehood about another person. The freedom of assembly is another 1st amendment right, but there is a difference between a lawful and peaceful assembly and a riot that results in the death of 5 people and the destruction of property.
Answer:
first example is it can have an emotional toll on an individual and cause them to go into depression.
second example is if the victim has to testify that can bring back the memory and will re open them to the trauma they suffered and they can become ashamed and think that everyone doesn't look at them the same way which makes them feel even worse about them selves until they can't stand to be around people anymore.
Explanation:
Answer:
Case 1 (Fordjour v. Ahmed case on rent) and Case 3 (Giz Construction v. Ministry of Roads on Nonpayment of project ) are civil cases which entail one party by talking the other party to court over money. Ahmed was taken to court by his landlord Fordjour over rent arrears while Minirtsy of Roads was taken to court for non-payment of project by Giz Construction. Case 2 (GRA v. Melcom over Tax payment) is criminal case as it entails Melcom violating laws stipulated by the government.
Answer:
Civil acts right of 1991
Explanation:
The civil acts right enforces laws to prevent unfair treatment during employment and on the job due to sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability, or age. Passed by Congress in 1991, this act advocates for fairness in employment matters and banned discrimination against the disabled in employment.
This preferential treatment of Jacqueline by Robert because she is African American goes against the 1991 civil act right.
Answer:
the president pro Tempore is A The temperature president officer of the Senate in the absence of the vice president.
