Answer:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Explanation:
This is the full first amendment.
Answer:
The system of checks and balances work by ensuring no single branch of government has more power than the other. An example of this would be that the Judicial branch vetoes executive orders. Another example is the executive branch vetoing legislative branch. Some examples of real-world examples, the legislative branch impeached President Donald Trump. This is a example of check's and balances because the legislative branch is ensuring that the executive branch doesn't overpower the other branches. Another check's and balacnes is that the supreme court is nominated by the president confirmed by the legislative branch.
Explanation:
Answer:
The Supreme Court has its own set of rules. According to these rules, four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. Five of the nine Justices must vote in order to grant a stay, e.g., a stay of execution in a death penalty case. Under certain instances, one Justice may grant a stay pending review by the entire Court.
Explanation:
The Constitution states that the Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court is the first, and only, Court to hear a case. The Constitution limits original jurisdiction cases to those involving disputes between the states or disputes arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers. Appellate jurisdiction means that the Court has the authority to review the decisions of lower courts. Most of the cases the Supreme Court hears are appeals from lower courts.
idk if that helps at all, hopefully it helps a little...
Answer:
terry v. ohio
Explanation:
Terry v. Ohio, in 1968, was a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not in violation when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
Your licence? or maybe stuff that you might need if they pull you over.
