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:
The second one.
Explanation:
The magna cartas ideas tell that everyone is subject to the law even the king. Thats basically limited government. hope that helps
Answer: I believe they would have to A) amend the constitution
Explanation:
Since burning the flag isn’t based on state law, they would have to alter the constitution. Protesting won’t be effective and electing a president who supports it won’t guarantee anything.
Answer:
Option D.
Explanation:
Revolution, is the right answer.
In the context of the political science, a revolution is a major and comparatively unexpected change in political leadership and administrative system which takes place at the time when the population launches a series of revolts against the government, usually due to observed oppression or political inadequacy.
Revolution is the only similarity between France and the United States. For instance, both the nations were seeking freedom; the U.S. from the occupation of Great Britain and France wanted to eliminate monarchy from France.
It was important that civil service positions were not hereditary so that officials would be well-qualified. The fear was that if these positions were hereditary or inherited by a parent then officials would not really qualify for the position they inherited. There would be no requirements to serve except that their parent was previously an official. By not allowing this officials would be required to qualify on their merits and not based on who they were related too. Thus better and more qualified officials would exist. The answer is A) so officials would be well-qualified.
