1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
vitfil [10]
3 years ago
14

In the case Gitlow v. New York, Gitlow argued: a) that his First Amendment rights were being violated. b) that he couldn't be co

nvicted of the same crime twice. c) that his Sixth Amendment rights guaranteed him the right to a jury. d) that he couldn't be jailed without being charged with a crime.
Social Studies
2 answers:
saul85 [17]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

that his First Amendment rights were being violated

Explanation:

Gitlow v. New York was a case that was ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 8, 1925 and stated that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution "Protection of Free Speech" also applied to state governments also. According to Gitlow, his article did not precipitate any violent action, but he was yet convicted, which he felt was a violation of his rights to freedom of speech as stated in the First Amendment.

cricket20 [7]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

A

Explanation:

In the case Gitlow v. New York, Gitlow argued: that his First Amendment rights were being violated

Benjamin Gitlow was arrested for distributing a communist pamphlet. He was charged under a New York law that banned the promotion of a revolution. He argued that his First Amendment rights were violated. Right to free speech he argued

The ruling established the practice of selective incorporation. The amendments can be incorporated as needed

You might be interested in
"fundamrntal rigts and duty are the two sides of coin" justify this statement.​
zvonat [6]

Answer:

Rights and duties are closely related and cannot be separated from one another. Both go side by side. These are the two sides of the same coin. If the state gives the right to life to a citizen, it also imposes an obligation on him to not to expose his life to dangers, as well as to respect the life of others. If I have a right to work and earn, it is also my duty to recognize the same right of others.

6 0
3 years ago
Why did the Supreme Court hear this case?
jeka94

Answer:

which case??plessy vs. burgison?(or however you spell it)

8 0
3 years ago
What should the judiciary do to win the trust of common People in nepal<br>​
MissTica

Answer:

The judiciary is regarded as the nation's moral conscience in democracy. People anticipate that an independent judiciary should tell truth the people about the political power instead of being influenced by it. The political history of Nepal shows centralisation of power, first in the hands of Rana rulers, and then the Shah kings. The political changes of 1990 led to the substantial reform in the judicial system. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990, for the first time, guaranteed the independence of the judiciary.

5 0
2 years ago
Presidents typically depend on their ___________ to get their policy proposals enacted in congress.
sladkih [1.3K]

Presidents typically depend on their fellow partisans to get their policy proposals enacted in congress.

A partisan is a devoted soldier or member of a political party. The phrase describes those who fervently adhere to the policies of their party and are unwilling to reach a political compromise. A political partisan should not be confused with a partisan in the armed forces. Over the past 60 years, the meaning of the phrase has undergone a significant alteration in the United States. Prior to the American National Election Study, which began in 1952 and is discussed in Angus Campbell et albook .'s The American Voter, it was common practice to infer someone's partisan preferences from their voting record. Since that time, the term "partisan" has evolved to describe a person who has a psychological affinity for one of the two main parties.

Learn more about partisans here:

brainly.com/question/21902069

#SPJ4

3 0
2 years ago
Waldo is traveling through a country located on the South China Sea.  This country was divided in 1954. H o Chi Minh's communist
dalvyx [7]
Waldo would be in a war zone. Most likely he would have to choose a side, and he would most likely choose Communist (if he's a ordinary man, like a farmer), or the Nationalists (if he is a business man)

He would most likely just leave i guess, since this war has nothing to do with him

hope this helps
4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which evidence indicates that most teens say no to smoking?
    9·2 answers
  • When distinctiveness is ________, consensus is ________, and consistency is high, people are likely to make an external attribut
    15·1 answer
  • What were the Constitutional changes to the presidency? Please help
    11·2 answers
  • According to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, securities listed on a National Exchange must include information on the issue
    10·1 answer
  • How can we conserve our cultural heritage?
    10·1 answer
  • Select the principal functions of a judge.
    15·1 answer
  • Lower birth rates and advances in medical technology have contributed to the "graying of America" true or false
    15·2 answers
  • Nuclear deterrence relation of foreign policies of America and Russia
    7·1 answer
  • HELLO NEED SOME HELP FOR MY RESEARCH THANK-YOU IN ADVANCE
    9·1 answer
  • While reading a novel at a rate of nearly 500 words per minute, Megan effortlessly understands almost every word. This ability h
    5·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!