Answer: trump wants to secure our bodes and stabilize immigrants before we over flow and drown in dept
biden wants to do work withen or country by helping senoir cizens
if you need why not to both then Trump doent know how to bite his tongue and shutup that could lead to few proplems but
biden is a pedlafiler so pick ur battels.
hair sniffer or big mouth
Answer:
if it's true of false then this is false
Answer:
Congress i think
Explanation:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 states that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ... excluding Indians not taxed." According to Story's Commentaries on the U.S. Constitution, "There were Indians, also, in several, and probably in most, of the states at that period, who were not treated as citizens, and yet, who did not form a part of independent communities or tribes, exercising general sovereignty and powers of government within the boundaries of the states."
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes", determining that Indian tribes were separate from the federal government, the states, and foreign nations; and
The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2 amends the apportionment of representatives in Article I, Section 2 above.
Answer:
The decision of the Supreme Court on Steagald v United States (1981) established that according to the Fourth Amendment, police officers can´t search for a suspect in a third party´s property without getting a search warrant first.
Explanation:
According to the Supreme Court, the search carried in the house of the petitioner, Gary Keith Steagald, which was conducted only with an arrest warrant for Ricky Lyons, and led to Steagald´s arrest, was a violation of the exclusionary rule stated in the Fourth Amendment that protects all citizens from illegal searches and seizures. I do agree with this decision because any effort to apprehend a suspect should never infringe nor his or a third party´s constitutional rights.
This is tricky but I would go with generally, yes.
Side note: However, I feel like that would have some major consequences!^
