The constitutional issue of freedom of the press was debated constantly after the release of the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers were a series of top secret documents that were only supposed to be seen by members of the federal government. However, these documents were leaked to the New York Times and Washington Post thanks to Daniel Ellsberg.
These papers showed that the American government had been lying to the citizens about the progress being made in the Vietnam War. These documents were supposed to be classified, however these newspapers published them in their newspapers anyways. This resulted in the battle between freedom of the press and the ability of the government to keep documents classified from the American public.
<span />
Answer:
The real advantage is that of having a considerable separation of power within the government.
Explanation:
With two houses or governing bodies in the United States, it provides less chances of corruption, a devolution of power among different institutions, and helps to keep a check on one another.
With just one house, there is too much power concentrated in the hands of a small number of people. This hampers the development of a proper democracy.
A democratization government needs to have a leader with limited power.
It led to the start of world war 1. Archduke Ferdinand was from the Balkans which was known as the "powder keg" of Europe during this time period.
Christianity, decadence, the metal lead in the water supply, monetary trouble, and military problems caused the fall of rome.
Answer:
This case involves a federal death sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Fields for conviction of a federal capital offense. Fields was sentenced to death largely on the basis of the opinion of a psychiatrist who stated that he could confidently predict Fields would be dangerous in the future. The psychiatrist testified that he did not know of any "standard psychiatric or medical procedures used in arriving at a determination or predicting future dangerousness" and that he was unaware of specific empirical data or studies. He issued his opinion without engaging in any testing or any other objective measures or use of an actuarial method. His basis for this opinion was discussions with the prosecutors and review of some records regarding the defendant. The defense attorney objected to the testimony as unreliable under the standards for expert testimony established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical (i.e., that proffered evidence must be grounded in scientific reasoning or methodology). The district court overruled the objections and allowed the expert testimony to go to the jury.
Explanation:
