Answer:
The decisions in Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Mapp v. Ohio are very important to defendants in criminal proceedings today because they enlarged defendants' rights in criminal trials and investigations.
Thus, Miranda v. Arizona refers to the fact that those accused of a crime must know their rights prior to being questioned by the police, that is, that everything they say can be used against them and that they have the right to consult a lawyer.
For its part, Gideon v. Wainwright guaranteed the defendants the right to have a lawyer, even when they could not afford it on their own financial means. In this way, a defendant is not left legally unprotected for not being able to afford a lawyer, since it is the state that grants him one for free.
Finally, Mapp v. Ohio prohibits the use of illegitimately obtained evidence in criminal proceedings. Thus, non-compliance with the Fourth Amendment (and the consequent search without a warrant) renders the evidence obtained in this way not admissible in court.
Answer:
The constitutionality of the Act was challenged by states based on two main grounds: 1. The issue of individual mandate; and 2. Mandatory expansion of medicaid by states.
Explanation:
The Affordable Healthcare Act otherwise known as Obamacare was a health reform Act that came into force in 2010 under the Obama administration in the United States of America which made provision for affordable health insurance for every citizen of America, and also expanded the scope of eligibility for medicaid in the United States of America. The constitutionality/legality of the Act was challenged by a total of about 26 states of the United States of America particularly on the ground that the Act imposed sanctions on states which failed to expand the medicaid, and on the ground of individual mandate to purchase health insurance violated the original Clause.
However, concerning the issue of individual mandate to buy health insurance, the Supreme Court of America upheld the constitutionality of the ACA on the ground that the congress has the valid and constitutional power to impose tax.
On the other hand, on the issue of mandatory expansion of medicaid by states, the court stated that it was optional and not mandatory for states to chose to expand the medicaid, thereby declaring the mandatory medicaid expansion by states unconstitutional.
For the last question the answer is C.
Answer: A dicovered electricity and it’s use as weapon
Explanation: I got the answer from quizizz
