Answer:
Members of congress.
Explanation:
As it is known that framers has placed their work about the said topic that the court has to follow the majority's preference especially in types of societies we find ourselves. In as much as they were smart and visionaries, a lot about the people are been asked to be in consideration in rulings. E.g Privacy is seen to put in here as identity theft is random and also medical histories are private and need not be shared with the general public as it is seen to come to financial records. Therefore congress members are seen to be less oportuned here.
It is the very thing that glues together your intent to research in the first place. It requires specificity and should be a problem that can create measurable evidence based results/ research
<span>They often interlock with a number of factors. Drug trafficking, poverty, wealth (and lack thereof) are often means that will lead to higher levels of homicide. When people have little money and no prospects of getting out of poverty, homicide might be one of the only avenues they see as a way of advancing.</span>
Answer:
The correct option is B: could create their own Miranda warning if it communicated the same message
Explanation:
According to the Duckworth v. Eagan (1988), in which the convicted claimed that the Miranda warnings were not corrected stated, the Supreme Court held that it is not a must that Miranda warnings must be in the exact format as described in the Miranda, as long as it conveys the rights of a suspect to the individual, it is valid. The convict claimed that "if and when you go to court" as used by the police officer to him rendered the Miranda warning inadequate, but the Supreme Court ruled that it does not.
