Answer:
The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, the rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza.
Answer: violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause
Explanation:
Plessy claimed the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause, which requires that a state must not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court disagreed with Plessy's argument and instead upheld the Louisiana law.
You have the right to disagree with it because there is the fifth amendment that does not allow the government to take away your private property and replace it with recreational centers, etc. or parks. You can negotiate the price with finance and business but it might not be guaranteed, but with researching financials you can negotiate the price lower, hope this helps
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECLINE OR DISAGREE THE PRICE OF EMINENT DOMAIN
Answer:
Discrimination affects people's opportunities, their well-being, and their sense of agency.
Explanation:
Persistent exposure to discrimination can lead individuals to internalize the prejudice or stigma that is directed against them, manifesting in shame, low self-esteem, fear and stress, as well as poor health. Thatś why it would impact our country's development.
Tennessee was where the first private jail was opened at.
