Answer:
It implied that segregation was not acceptable in any public facility.
Explanation:
The Brown v Board of Education case origined in 1951, when the daughter of Oliver Brown was not granted access to the school closest to their home in a city in Kansas, requiring to take the bus to go to a segregated school farter away.
Brown entered with the case and won, which paved the way for integration in American schools, since the Supreme Court stated that the state may not apply rules differently to any person within its juridiction, that is, everyone must be treated the same. This was a case in Topeka, Kansas, but implied that segregation was not acceptable in any other public facilities.
Answer:
be a citizen
Explanation:
live in a state/country with rights
Answer:
Brayden should dispose of the gum
Explanation:
In the given scenario the law in Singapore states that having chewing gum is illegal. As far as Brayden is in Singapore he should comply with the law there.
The equal protection clause is a provision of law that states that all citizens must be treated equally under the law.
Although this gives one the right to take retain actions, in this case Brayden will be restricted from having chewing gum.
Of he is allowed to carry chewing gum then he expects to be treated differently from others in Singapore. This violates the equal protection clause
Answer:
Yes, because he has been convicted as a child mol and has been a repeated offender. That is the Law!
Explanation: