Answer: In Morse v. Frederick, the majority acknowledged that the Constitution affords lesser protections to certain types of student speech at school or at school-supervised events. ... As such, the state had an "important" if not "compelling" interest in prohibiting/punishing such student speech.
Explanation:
:)
<span>
if direct democracy means (pure) democracy then it means that every
citizen would get a chance to vote on issues instead of what we have in
the US: a representative democracy where we vote in politicians to do it
for us. A pure democracy would lead to civil war most likely b/c too
many people would be able to disagree, anarchy would be a likely
result,....so i would say D is your answer </span>
The declaration of independence expresses their convictions 5 signers have been captured by the British as traitors and tortured earlier than they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. two lost their sons within the revolutionary army, any other had two sons captured. nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of progressive warfare.
Despite the fact that there was no legal purpose to signal the announcement, Jefferson and the other Founders signed it because they desired to “mutually pledge” to every different that they have been certain to guide it with “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Their signatures were courageous because the signers realized they had been.
By signing the document, the 56 men risked excessive treason toward the King of England. In essence, they signed their demise warrants due to the fact that became the penalty. but, death became not simple or brief. It was a process.
Learn more about the declaration of independence here:brainly.com/question/9515546
#SPJ4
Kind Tang of Shang and his ice men
Preventing genocide is one of the greatest challenges facing the international community.[1]<span> Aside from the suffering and grief inflicted upon generations of people and the catastrophic social, economic and political dislocations that follow, this ‘crime of crimes’ has the potential to destabilize entire regions for decades (Bosco, 2005). The shockwaves of Rwanda’s genocide are still felt in the eastern parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo nearly 20 years later, for example. Considerable resources are now devoted to the task of preventing genocide. In 2004 the United Nations established the Office of the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide with the purpose to ‘raise awareness of the causes and dynamics of genocide, to alert relevant actors where there is a risk of genocide, and to advocate and mobilize for appropriate action’ (UN 2012). At the 2005 World Summit governments pledged that where states were ‘manifestly failing’ to protect their populations from ‘war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity’ the international community could step in a protect those populations itself (UN, 2012). The ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) project, designed to move the concept of state sovereignty away from an absolute right of non-intervention to a moral charge of shielding the welfare of domestic populations, is now embedded in international law (Evans 2008). Just this year, the United States government has stated that ‘preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States,’ and that ‘President Obama has made the prevention of atrocities a key focus of this Administration’s foreign policy’ (Auschwitz Institute, 2012). Numerous scholars and non-government organisations have similarly made preventing genocide their primary focus (Albright and Cohen, 2008; Genocide Watch, 2012).</span>
