Answer:
"It is a fair summary of constitutional history that the landmarks of our liberties have ... the center of one of many national civil liberties disputes in the late 20th century. ... For example, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees citizens the ... Government, then, cannot interfere in an individual's freedom of worship.
Explanation:
Answer:
there is no advantage
Explanation:
other then the fact that they were there when the crime was commited
Answer:
the body
Explanation:
The Declaration of Independence is the document referring to the time when the US was founded, we can consider this document as the founding document of the country, as through it the country can completely detach itself from British rule. This statement was approved by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, and has in its text the genius of Thomas Jefferson.
Regarding the structural declaration of independence, we can state that the body of the declaration acts as an implicit plan of action, since the laws and practices discussed therein were written in a proposition but not formally expressed; not manifestly stated and subject to change.
In Palko v. Connecticut (1937), the Supreme Court had to decide whether "due process of law" means states must obey the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment
<u>Explanation:
</u>
The observation of the Supreme Court is that the convict cannot be punished two times for the same offense. It is simple and very clear that the convict cannot be punished under the fourth and fifth amendments for same offense.
In this particular case, the prosecution has charged Frank Palko for first-degree murder and the court has given a decree as life imprisonment. But the actual nature crime amounts to second-degree murder.
So, the state of Connecticut appealed against this judgment and it has been proved that offense made by Frank Palko amounts to second-degree murder and the death penalty is awarded to convict. The Supreme Court's main decision in Palko vs Connecticut was Palko was the victim of unconstitutional double jeopardy.
