<span>C.by ensuring equal justice for all under law</span>
Answer:
De-individuation
Explanation:
De-individuation is the concept of social psychology. It is generally called the loss of general awareness. in a group of people. This is also called the matter of resistance. Many of the social psychologists have studied the concepts if de-individuation but in a different manner.
But on the other hand, the social psychologist is based on the context of the social situation. The social psychologist focused on the internal process of the psychological well being. The sociology focused on the context of the economic, political and social factors.
Answer: The right of assembly may not be revoked except in exceptional cases.
Explanation:
The right to peaceful assembly is one of the basic rights of American citizens. In other civilized societies, too, the right to assembly is one of the basic postulates of democratic systems. The government cannot prohibit the right to gather citizens, but it can impose restrictions on the place and time of gatherings. Such restrictions are permitted if there is a possibility of compromising security. The United States Supreme Court's first amendment protects citizens' right to assemble.
Answer: Sociological Imagination
Explanation:
Question:
Why do you think Lincoln didn't end slavery in the north?
Answer:
The proclamation didn't end slavery because it didn't affect the border slave states that weren't in rebellion, and it had no immediate effect in most of the deep South because, at least on the day it was issued, the slaves were in territory still controlled by the Confederacy.
Explanation:
Abraham Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nation’s founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word “slavery” in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count enslaved people for the purposes of representation in the federal government.
In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slavery—and then admitted he didn’t know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system.
Abolitionists, by contrast, knew exactly what should be done about it: Slavery should be immediately abolished, and freed enslaved people should be incorporated as equal members of society. They didn’t care about working within the existing political system, or under the Constitution, which they saw as unjustly protecting slavery and enslavers. Leading abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell,” and went so far as to burn a copy at a Massachusetts rally in 1854.
-Alan Becker