Answer:
1. "Loose lips sink ships." Share certain information can jeopardize OpSec, and result in advantages for enemy troops.
2. 1A should protect ALL speech. censoring specific words is a form of bias. People should instead be taught coping skills when presented with ideas they find objectionable. "Hate speech" presumes there is a speaker and a listener. The speaker can share anything he likes. The listener is the regulated party. When presented with objectionable ideas, he has choices: he can choose the respond calmly and reasonably; he can respond with aggression; or, he can ignore it and walk away.
Answer:
The U.S. Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review—the power of the federal courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional. The unanimous opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall
The question is incomplete. This is the complete question:
The state trial court in Nevada has issued a decision in which a party has been found guilty of fraud. Should a case arise in the future with the same basic fact situation, Nevada courts will be bound by precedent to follow the reasoning and decision of this prior decision.
Answer:
No, should a case arise in the future with the same basic fact situation, Nevada state trial courts will not be bound by precedent to follow the reasoning and decision of this prior decision, because the decisions of trial courts do not use precedents or rulings established in previous legal cases to arrive at decisions on future disputes involving different or entirely new parties.
I believe there is nothing wrong with all lives matter and I do believe that Black Lives Matter but the Black Lives Matter MOVEMENT doesn’t. But from your perspective I would say that the all lives matter movement is wrong because all it’s trying to do is invalidate the Black Lives Matter movement
