What is Katz argument: The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart for the Court.
What is the Katz v United States holding: The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart for the Court.
Answer:On January 12, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury requires that federal sentencing guidelines be advisory, rather than mandatory. 1 In doing so, the Court struck down a provision in law that made the federal sentencing guidelines mandatory 2 as well as a provision that permitted appellate review of departures from the guidelines. 3 In essence, the Court's ruling gives federal judges discretion in sentencing offenders by not requiring them to adhere to the guidelines; rather, the guidelines can be used by judges on an advisory basis. 4 As a result of the ruling, judges now have discretion in sentencing defendants unless the offense carries a mandatory sentence (as specified in law).
Explanation: :)
Answer:
Secret service
Explanation:
Since 1901, every President from Theodore Roosevelt on has been protected by the Secret Service. In 1917, threats against the President became a felony (a serious crime in the eyes of the law), and Secret Service protection was broadened to include all members of the First Family
Answer:
Most of the structure of the organization was a combination of Greek and Roman influences, most of the Bill of Rights taken from the common law of England / Magna Carta, but the truly unique thing was that it did not allow religious trials to hold office, and prevent religious establishment.
Significantly, this did not apply to the provinces at first, only to the provincial government. Many provinces immediately declared their official state religion. This went under the inclusion doctrine found in amendment 14.
Hope it helps!
