1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
AleksAgata [21]
3 years ago
7

In 15 words or fewer explain which level of government - national, state, or local would be the most likely to take away citizen

s' rights and why.
History
1 answer:
Leviafan [203]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

Under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. All state governments are modeled after the federal government and consist of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial

Hope this was helpful!

please follow❤

You might be interested in
The ability to allow political parties to have a strong voice in national politics is an attribute of
navik [9.2K]
Democracy is the answer
7 0
4 years ago
Why did Europeans generally buy slaves from slave traders rather than capturing the slaves themselves?
strojnjashka [21]
The right answer for the question that is being asked and shown above is that: "D Africans were generally able to hide from or defend themselves against Europeans." Europeans generally buy slaves from slave traders rather than capturing the slaves themselves because D Africans were generally able to hide from or defend themselves against Europeans.<span>
</span>
8 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What did Galveston do to prevent further tragedy?
S_A_V [24]

Answer:

To protect the city from flooding, they proposed raising the level of the entire city by picking up most of the structures in the city and filling in beneath them with sand.

5 0
4 years ago
Where was Marie Antoinette originally from
ziro4ka [17]
She was from Vienna, Austria
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
For either Mapp v. Ohio or Miranda v. Arizona, describe the constitutional issue of the case, and explain how the court's ruling
Lubov Fominskaja [6]

The case <em>Miranda v. Arizona (1966)</em> was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court in which the court established that prosecutors cannot use a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial, unless the person was informed of what is known as "Miranda warning," but voluntarily waived these rights.

A "Miranda warning" is an explanation given to people arrested that informs them of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning. It also informs them of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning. The court's ruling protect those accused of a crime because it prevents them from incriminating themselves. It also reminds them of the importance of an attorney for achieving a successful trial.

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What best defines the War Hawks?
    12·2 answers
  • Where did J.F.K. get shot
    9·2 answers
  • The supreme courts ability to determine constitutionality is called
    11·1 answer
  • Uhhhg, History {my LEASE fave subject!} Who was the Hellenistic (Greek) mathematician who invented the compound pulley and is kn
    8·2 answers
  • How did Governor Rivers’s support of the New Deal benefit Georgia? Check all that apply.
    7·1 answer
  • The political dynamics evident in the agreement are most similar to which of the following?
    15·2 answers
  • What is the meaning of 21st century citizenship to you?
    8·1 answer
  • To the northwest
    8·2 answers
  • Que entiendes por teatro romántico​
    14·1 answer
  • Who was named the president of the Confederate States of America?
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!