Answer:
The Significance of Dred Scott v Sanford is that the decision was a landmark decision during the time, as it delcared that all African-American, regardless of freed or enslaved status, were not to be declared legal citizens of the United States. It also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. While it was intended to settle the slavery debate and tensions going on at the time, it instead deepened tensions between the abolitionist North and pro-slavery South that would eventually lead to Civil War. In contemporary times, Dred Scott is considered one of, if not the worst Supreme Court ruling in the Supreme Courts history.
Explanation:
Hope that helps :)
<span>The popular form of government appears to some type of republic from an executive form which has a president independent of the legislature to a ceremonial republic where the ministry is subject to the power of the legislature.</span>
1. The correct answer is C. Norman Borlaug is the father of the Green Revolution and is responsible for developing a strain of wheat that improved crop yields.
2. Most countries in Africa achieved independent through some sort of organized military resistance.
No, the freedom of speech is one of the most important rights in a democracy along with the freedom of press. It allows several voices to rise and be heard. But it does not means that you can say whatever you want whenever you want.
You can find the foundations of the freedom of speech in the first amendment where it says:
<em>"Amendment I
</em>
<em>
</em>
<em>Congress </em><em>shall make no law </em><em>respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or </em><em>abridging the freedom of speech</em><em>, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" </em>
But there are exceptions to the rule. You can´t say whatever you want as the supreme court have showed in several cases. From this we can extract some categories where the first amendment doesn´t work:
- Incitement: When its directed to inciting or producing inminent lawless action.
- False statements of facts: there are some types of this unprotected according to the supreme court: those said with <em>"sufficiently culpable mental state" </em>can be subject of criminal or civil liability. Secondly libel and slander and finally negligent statements or facts can be subject of civil liability.
As a conclusion we can say that the freedom of speech is a fundamental right in a healthy democracy but we must take care of it. We can´t say whatever we want, well actually we can but you have to be responsible of your acts.
