Answer:
Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) is a historical case examined by the Supreme Court. By a decision in this case, the court established that any evidence, whether confessing or exculpatory, can be used in court only if the prosecution can prove that the suspect was informed before the interrogation about the right to a lawyer and about the right not to testify against himself. At the same time, in case of refusal of the suspect from his rights, it is necessary to prove its voluntariness. The Miranda case set a precedent requiring all police departments to inform detainees of their rights to a lawyer and silence. These warnings are called the Miranda rule. The Supreme Court equated the Miranda Rule with constitutional acts.
Explanation:
Answer:
1. Federal Government
2. More power for the States
Explanation:
During the formation of the Constitution in the United States known as the Constitutional Convention, it was revealed that the North generally supported the idea of a stronger FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
The south, on the other hand, feared Constant interference from the north and wanted "More power for the States."
This is based on the idea that the political elites of the North do not favor slavery which is based on the fact that their economic growth is not based on the exploitation of slavery.
However, the political elites of the South favor slavery simply because their Agricultural based economy thrives best on the exploitation of slavery.
The ancient Roman and Greek civilizations had well-organized political processes that greatly influenced the manner in which later governments were structured in Europe and the United States. The system of political parties, the establishment of divisions in government -- even political words such as democracy, monarchy and tyranny -- originated in ancient Rome and Greece. Although Rome drew many of its political principles from the Greeks, and as a result, developed a government similar to that of Greece, there were several differences between the two.
