Answer:
where is the options to the question
The arrest of a criminal suspect.
If you've ever watched a television crime drama, you've heard the "Miranda warning" -- or at least the beginning of it: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney ...." There's a couple more sentences to the warning, but TV shows often cut to the next scene before hearing the arresting officer finish their recitation of the full warning.
Miranda v. Arizona was a Supreme Court case decided in 1966. Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman. He confessed to the crime when interrogated by police, but attorneys argued that he did not fully understand his 6th Amendment rights. After the decision in Miranda v. Arizona, it has become standard procedure in all arrests that the arresting officers must clearly state the accused person's rights -- their "Miranda rights," as they have become known.
Answer: it depends what you are talking about what documents are you trying to argue. But here is my shot in trying to help you make your argument clear that you are for the topic then use that information to write an argument against that topic.
Explanation: meaning if you are trying to argue let’s say the Indian removal act you would write why you are for it and then write why you are against it.
Answer:
Smith
Explanation:
Although Jones won more votes from the people when added all together, Smith won more electoral votes. In state A Smith was voted the most so he won 10 electoral votes and in State B Jones was voted more and won 9 electoral votes. Since 10 votes is larger than 9 Smith won. Basically Smith won the most votes in a state that had more people so more electoral votes in total, and because of that he got more electoral votes which resulted in his victory.
The answer is each country has its own system because of different cultures because the world of that was
