Answer:
Protection against unwanted search and seizure
Explanation:
Freedom of religion wasn't violated because the FBI aren't trying to prevent him from practicing his religion.
Freedom of assembly is wrong because the FBI isn't preventing them from getting each other.
Protection against unlawful accusations is also incorrect because their is no unlawful accusation in intercepting suspicious messages.
This obviously leaves protection against unwarranted searches and seizures because the FBI took Tristians phone without gaining a warrant from a judge that would legally allow them to take it.
Answer:
If Holt and Collins retain the right to a Class action.
Explanation:
Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes outside of court. The Parties involved in the case refer their disputes to an arbitrator who will making a decision after reviewing the evidence and listening to the parties.
Arbitration clauses can be mandatory or voluntary, and the arbitrator's decision may be binding or nonbinding. (binding means you are not going to court again, but would abide by the decisions if the arbitrator).
Furthermore, the Arbitration is a legal technique used by the parties involved in a dispute to resolve the disputes outside the courts, the parties refer the disputes to one or more persons called either the "arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral tribunal", by whose decision (the "award") they agree to be bound.
Then A "class action" lawsuit or the
"mass tort litigation" is one in which a group of people with the same or similar injuries caused by the same product or action sue the defendant as a group. It can also be called the "multi-district litigation".
If Holt and Collins decide to retain the right to a Class action, it will definitely not be the result of an arbitration.
Answer:
Joe Biden represents the democratic party, go to joebiden.com
Explanation:
The President nominated US Marshals and the senate approved them.
Hi again!
The amendment of free speech is very important to everyone today. Free speech gives everyone a say in society, and etc.. In the 1790's, free speech was passed because a lot of people felt unfair that they could not protest/rally/speech about unfair issues. When it passed in the 1790's, people had felt a bit of fairness and "proudness" because they now had a say in something. In today's world, the first amendment would most probably pass today. If the same problem of unfairness from the 1790's was occurring, this law most probably would be passed. Without freedom of speech, a lot of things from today would be missing. For example, the ability to vote or speak freely on an opinion of an individual. Without free speech, there might also be no media, and it is also a possibility that people would not be able to vote.
Make sure you reword this, and add some of your own detail, otherwise it might/will be considered plagiarism :) have a wonderful day/night :)
