Answer:
"Opponents of the War Powers Resolution have traditionally claimed that clause 11 confers upon Congress only a narrow piece of war power. Defenders of the Resolution have argued in contrast that the Resolution constitutes an exercise of congressional authority under the clause. This last contention pokes at the truth without quite striking it. The War Powers Resolution is not constitutional as an exercise of the war power. It is constitutional because it defines the war power. The War Powers Resolution is nothing more or less than a congressional definition of the word "war" in article I. A definition of this kind coupled with a reasonable enforcement mechanism is well within the power of Congress under a proper understanding of the constitutional system of checks and balances. The definition does not intrude on any presidential prerogative. The mechanisms chosen by Congress to enforce the provisions of the Resolution were reasonable in 1973 and, although matters have been complicated by the United States Supreme Court's decision late last Term in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, those mechanisms remain reasonable today."
Explanation:
Answer Integration angle just means peoples perspective on integration!
Explanation:
I had a little trouble reading this so I apologize if it's not correct!
Try rewording the question as: What are 3 arguments people make against integration when it comes to affirmative action?
I sadly do not know the 3 arguments regarding integration in affirmative action, but I hope the way I reworded the question helps! The term "integration angle" is rather confusing.
ANSWER: The exclusionary rule states that any evidence that is obtain illegally, (i.e without a warrant) and any statements obtained through an illegal interrogation, which violate the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, will not be an acceptable evidence at a criminal trial in the court.
This exclutionary rule applies only to criminal case and not to civil case. Because John Bratton has a murder case charge, which are the dead bodies found in his properties. John Bratton's case is a civil case, and all evidence filed with his case should be admissible in the court of law.
Sara Sutton will not be charged for illegally selling gun, but will be charged for being a sole sponsor of a civil crime case charged against Bratton. This will make Sara Sutton to be prosecuted along side with Bratton, in the case.
If Sara Sutton is charged for illegally selling of guns, it will be a criminal case which will not be admissible by the court, due to exclusionary rule, because the police got their evidence without a search warrant.
John Bratton will not be charged for drug abuse offense, which is a criminal case, because all evidence provided will not be accepted due to exclusionary rule. Stankowitcz has busted into Bratton's apartment without a search warrant.
