subject
History, 30.06.2019 00:30 iilovejohnccena1022

What was the effect of the supreme court decision described in this headline decision in miranda v. arizona protects suspects a. state governments were required to provide suspects with lawyers b. police were required to warn suspects before using firearms against them. c. police were required to inform suspects of their right to remain silent and have a lawyer present during questioning. d. state governments could not use evidence that had been obtained illegally

ansver
Answers: 1

Another question on History

question
History, 21.06.2019 19:30
In the decision for dred scott vs.sanford, (1857) in which a slave petitioned for his freedom in a st. louis court, on the grounds that his owner had taken him into free territory, and thus he ought no longer be regarded as possessing "slave" status, but should be regarded as a free man, the court decided as follows (excerpt): "in the circuit courts of the united states, the record must show that the case is one in which by the constitution and laws of the united states, the court had jurisdiction--and if this does not appear, and the court gives judgment either for plaintiff or defendant, it is error, and the judgment must be reversed by this court--and the parties cannot by consent waive the objection to the jurisdiction of the circuit court. a free negro of the african race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the constitution of the united states. when the constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the states as members of the community which constituted the state, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizen.' consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. and not being "citizens" within the meaning of the constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the united states, and the circuit court has not jurisdiction in such a suit. the only two clauses in the constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves. since the adoption of the constitution of the united states, no state can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the united states, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument." why does the court say that the petitioning party in this case had no right to sue for his freedom? a) because he is too young b) because he is from a different state c) because he is "of the african race" with enslaved ancestors d) because he is, properly speaking, within his owner's jurisdiction
Answers: 1
question
History, 21.06.2019 22:00
How did testimony such as this from the triangle shirtwaist factory disaster affect the workplace?
Answers: 1
question
History, 22.06.2019 09:00
What affects did the great depression have on americans
Answers: 3
question
History, 22.06.2019 10:00
The senate differs from the house of representatives in that representatives serve for terms, while senators serve terms. question 18 options: six year, four year four year, six year two year, six year six year, two year
Answers: 1
You know the right answer?
What was the effect of the supreme court decision described in this headline decision in miranda v....
Questions
question
Physics, 12.03.2020 17:45
question
History, 12.03.2020 17:45
Questions on the website: 13722367