The correct answer would be, United States vs. Jones.
In United States vs. Jones, the US Supreme Court found that government had physically occupied private property via a GPS device over a prolonged period of time.
Explanation:
GPS stands for Global Position System. This is basically a navigation system, which keeps track of the device location and can monitor the movement of the thing on which the device is installed, like mobile phones, cars, bikes, etc.
United States vs. Jones was a landmark United States court case. According to this case, the GPS device which is installed on a vehicle basically constitutes a search under fourth amendment, as it tracks the movement of the vehicle.
Learn more about Global Positioning System at:
brainly.com/question/2975558
#LearnWithBrainly
Answer:
Spain had been a weak neighbor, but Jefferson knew that France, then ruled by Napoleon would not be.
Explanation:
The correct answer is "Irish Catholic residents."
The Philadelphia Nativist Riots of 1844 began because of Irish Catholic residents.
The mid-1800s was a difficult time for immigrants in the United States.
Among the many incidents of those years, the Philadelphia Nativist Riots of 1844 made the news in the Pennsylvania region.
These riots involved serious aggressions to Catholic Irish in the area of Philadelphia. The riots started on May 6-8, 1844, and continued two months later on July 6-7, the same year. The specific places of the riots were the neighborhoods of Southwark and Kensington.
Local people were tired of the presence of Irish-Catholic in the city and the riots started. The fight increased to the degree that the state government had to send troops to stop the fights and control the situation. There were many casualties and some people died.
Answer: Inherent powers are not specifically listed in the Constitution, but they grow out of the very existence of the national government. For example, the United States has the power to acquire territory by exploration and/or occupancy, primarily because most governments in general claim that right.
Explanation:
1: are there options?
2:Hope it help. Sorry if it doesn't.
3: no options. answer prob wrong.
I agree with these perspectives on the grounds that there are a few situations where an individual planned to follow up on a good aim however the result wasn't right and here and there an individual expect to act awful after something and the activity ended up being great. My point is that occasionally unexpected things can happen and cause a change to a condition that we have no power in. I trust that an individual ought to be judged in light of their expectations, not their activities.
