The bill of rights is prohibiting the establishment of religion and abridging the freedom of speech.
Here, the Congress should not make a law that endorses a specific religion or that prohibits the free exercise of it. This right is protected by the first amendment.
Also, the government cannot lessen or restrict the exercise of Freedom of Speech. People have rights to assemble and make known to the government their grievances.
The human right addressed in the first amendment of the Constitution is the right of people to express themselves as they want. We the people get to speak freely and assemble freely and be ourselves as freely as we like.
Answer:
bringing Russia into the modern age.
Explanation:
Answer:
Quetzalcoatl
Explanation:
Quetzalcoatl is represented with a snake with feathers on his body. It contains a representation of the two natural conditions of all human beings: on the one hand, the earthly symbolized with the snake body and, on the other, the spiritual character of the bird represented with feathers. This God was characterized by his enormous wisdom.
Answer:
The Supreme Court case known as Kelo v. City of New London was controversial because it allowed greater use of the power of eminent domain.
Explanation:
Kelo v. City of New London is a judgment of the US Supreme Court on whether the government can expropriating private property and transferring it to another private entity, with the purpose of economic development of the city. The plaintiff, Kelo, was the resident of the requisitioned land, and the defendant was the municipality of New London, Connecticut. On June 23, 2005, the latest judgment of the US Supreme Court on this case attracted wide attention. This case involved a “paid collection” of land. According to the latest judgment of the US Supreme Court, local municipalities have the power to impose private land for commercial development – as long as such development falls within the category of “public use”. The Supreme Court ruled that “the city’s planned deployment of land acquisition is in line with 'public use' and within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment clause.” Therefore, the case also triggered a new round of discussions on how to implement the Fifth Amendment, how to explain it, and how to use it.
