Answer:
This principle means people of federal territories should decide for themselves whether their territories would enter the Union as free or slave states.
Explanation:
<span>Nutritional related
medical problems associated with children under five include </span>gastrointestinal
disorders and prediabetes. These result from inappropriate nutrition practices
such as because of the failure to meet the dietary guidelines that are
recommended. It can also be due to low hemoglobin
<span>12 members were appointed by the King (prominent wealthy landowners) because the king controlled Georgia when it became a royal colony. Hope this helped!</span>
A tuition difference between in-state and out of state students is an example of: How states make exceptions to the privileges and immunities clause.
<h3><u>What is in-state vs. out-of-state tuition?</u></h3>
The privileges and immunities clause emphasizes that a state cannot discriminatorily treat residents of other states. People from one state need to have the same rights in all of them. This is refuted by the tuition differential between in-state and out-of-state students.
- A student who resides permanently in the state where their university is situated is said to be paying in-state tuition. The cost that out-of-state students, including those from abroad, pay to attend a public state institution is referred to as out-of-state tuition.
- Typically, in-state tuition is far less expensive than out-of-state tuition.
- For instance, the School of Undergraduate Studies at The University of Texas at Austin costs residents of the state $5,624 for 12 or more credits. Out-of-state students pay $19,464 for the same courses, which is a difference of approximately $14,000.
To view more about state, refer to:
brainly.com/question/13487755
#SPJ4
Answer:
The correct answer is C. A judge could throw out the teen's confession unless the officer complies with the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.
Explanation:
Miranda v. Arizona is a ruling of the United States Supreme Court from 1966. The case established the current practice whereby a suspect is required to read his or her rights (the so-called Miranda rights) without exception, which state the right to before a preliminary investigation of the suspect has begun.
That was the decision in Ernesto Miranda's trial. Miranda was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and sexual assault of an 18-year-old girl on prima facie evidence. After two hours of questioning, Miranda signed the confession. However, he had never been informed of the possibility of meeting a legal adviser or of being silent, and that his confession could not be used against him. During the trial, Miranda's attorney, Alvin Moore, argued that confession would therefore not apply in court. Moore's objection was rejected and Miranda was sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence. The Arizona Supreme Court also upheld the ruling.
The United States Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, ruled that, due to the Fifth and Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, no confession would be valid unless the suspect was informed of his rights. The Fifth Amendment states that no one can be compelled to testify against himself and the Sixth Addendum secures access to a lawyer. Ernesto Miranda's judgment was overturned, but he was later sentenced to prison for the same case, based on other evidence.
