Answer:
The monarchy was abolished, and Cromwell assumed control of the new English Commonwealth. In 1658, Cromwell died and was succeeded by his eldest son, Richard, who was forced to flee to France in the next year with the restoration of the monarchy and the crowning of Charles II, the son of Charles I.
Explanation:
Answer:
The decisions in Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Mapp v. Ohio are very important to defendants in criminal proceedings today because they enlarged defendants' rights in criminal trials and investigations.
Thus, Miranda v. Arizona refers to the fact that those accused of a crime must know their rights prior to being questioned by the police, that is, that everything they say can be used against them and that they have the right to consult a lawyer.
For its part, Gideon v. Wainwright guaranteed the defendants the right to have a lawyer, even when they could not afford it on their own financial means. In this way, a defendant is not left legally unprotected for not being able to afford a lawyer, since it is the state that grants him one for free.
Finally, Mapp v. Ohio prohibits the use of illegitimately obtained evidence in criminal proceedings. Thus, non-compliance with the Fourth Amendment (and the consequent search without a warrant) renders the evidence obtained in this way not admissible in court.
Answer:
Well, why would <em>you</em> think its not important? Is there a specific reason you would think it is not important? It's really tough to answer things like this because it really depends on your own opinion.
After almost two thousand years of life in the scattering, the Jews began to return to Israel after the Second World War. It was preceded by many agreements, promises, that by the decision of the UN, the Jews would be allowed to form their own state in Palestine. Of course this did not go without conflicts and struggle, because the Arabs who had already lived in Palestine claimed that Palestine had been their land for many centuries, calling on mosques that exist on the hill of the temple. On the other hand, the Jews claimed that Palestine was actually Israel, their promised land according to the Bible, and called for a crying wall, the remains of the Jewish temple, which according to the Bible existed before the Arabs were in Palestine.
The answer is: Jews and Arabs.
<span>I
think that the positives of partisanship is that the incumbent political leader
will have the (1) unwavering support from his cohorts with regards to the
projects, programs or laws that he/she will be implementing (2) their
aspirations and objectives are aligned which helps in catalyzing in the changes
that they may want to implement in the government or administration and (3) its
identity can endure simply because it is strengthened by affiliating itself to
gender, ethnic, religious and racial groups thus promoting a connection to a
party which eventually generates political stability and diminish political
influence by independents or nonpartisans. On the downside, partisanship may
(1) promote divisiveness especially if its advocacies are met with great
opposition by the non-cohorts and (2) there will be bias especially if
arguments are thrown against them which leads to the scrutiny of the opposing
views at a greater degree just to refute the said argument.</span>