from 1953 to 1969, under chief justice Earl Warren, the Supreme Court emerged as a major force in protecting _______​

The right to vote is a critical cornerstone of democracy that, when denied to particular groups of people, may have catastrophic implications for the democratic process.

Without being heard or represented in any meaningful fashion, disenfranchised citizens cannot expect policies that take into account their interests and needs, thereby contributing to systemic inequality.

Consequently, addressing disparities in voting laws must be undertaken immediately; neglecting to do so impels existing disparities further, leading to a profound lack in representative government.

Ida B. Wells' quote comprehends the import of voting as a fundamental human right - an ability which if deprived jeopardizes other valid rights and causes impaired security to the democratic principles themselves. It therefore stands true that each individual's voice should be audibly present during elections and that their vote constitutes a considerable factor in creating their communities and country.

Read more about voting here:

https://brainly.com/question/1107495

#SPJ1

Answer:

petit jury

Explanation:

Trials are generally public, but jury deliberations are private. Defendants have the right to appear, testify, and call witnesses on their behalf. Final outcome is a verdict, in favor of plaintiff or defendant in a civil case, or guilty/not guilty in a criminal case.

1. We can see here that the case of the New Jersey v. T.L.O. involved: The State of New Jersey and T.L.O.

2. It is clear that the Supreme Court of the United States actually addressed the subject of students' Fourth Amendment rights against irrational searches and seizures in the landmark case of New Jersey v. T.L.O.

3. We can point out that the New Jersey Superior Court, the lower court, had found in the state's favor, concluding that the search of T.L.O.'s pocketbook was appropriate in the circumstances.

We can actually defined a legal issue as a disagreement that exists between the parties in a case that has a specific legal topic that needs to be decided by a court or other legal body.

4. We can see that in the New Jersey v. T.L.O., the legal question was actually citing whether school employees' search of T.L.O.'s purse violated the Fourth Amendment's ban on unjustified searches and seizures.

5. We see that the main arguments raised in the case was whether the search of T.L.O.'s purse qualified as a Fourth Amendment reasonable search.

6. We can point out that The Fourth Amendment's safeguards do not apply the same manner in schools as they do in other circumstances, according to the Supreme Court's prior finding in the case of Ingraham v. Wright, which was referenced in support of its reasoning.

Learn more about legal issues on https://brainly.com/question/30663289

#SPJ1

More prosecutiors would be helpful to the system

Тhe аррointment оf рrosecutоrs, like judges, cоuld hаve bоth аdvаntаges аnd disаdvаntаges.

Оn onе hаnd, аррointing рrosecutоrs cоuld pоtentiаlly helр tо ensure thаt thе рrosecutоrs аre quаlified аnd competent, аs well аs free from рoliticаl influence or biаs. This cоuld helр tо inсreаse thе fаirness аnd impаrtiаlity оf thе criminаl justicе systеm, аs well аs еnhаncе public trust in thе systеm.

Оn thе othеr hаnd, аррointing рrosecutоrs cоuld аlsо leаd tо а lаck оf ассountаbility, аs thеy mаy be less directly аccountаble tо thе public thаn eleсted рrosecutоrs. This cоuld pоtentiаlly leаd tо а lаck оf respоnsiveness tо thе cоncerns аnd needs оf thе communities thеy sеrvе.

Read more on рrosecutоrs herehttps://brainly.com/question/27073860

#SPJ1

In Schenck v. United States, the Court ruled that Congress could limit freedom of expression when it presents a clear and present danger to public safety.  Option D

Charles Schenck was convicted in the case for distributing leaflets inciting people to reject the military draft during World War I.

The Supreme Court upheld his conviction on the grounds that Schenck's actions clearly and immediately threatened the government's ambitions to create an army and wage war.

Learn more about court:https://brainly.com/question/30504470

#SPJ1

In 1966, a groundbreaking lawsuit was brought to the fore: Miranda v. Arizona, where Ernesto Miranda was apprehended and examined by law enforcement officials without the informed consent of his entitlements under the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel.

The charges against him were substantiated with emphasis on his confession extracted during questioning, coercively surrendered as it wasn't shared that he holds certain rights.

His appeal highlighted this debacle and proposed that such confessions obtained are deemed inadmissible evidence. Subsequently, the U.S Supreme Court acquiesced to hear the trial, determining freedom for Miranda asserting individuals being made aware of their rights before interrogation.

As a sequence to this conclusion, the "Miranda warning," familiar now to suspects who are taken into custody was introduced. Nonetheless, one dissenter verbally expressed concern; refusing that the resolution would exacerbate crime prevention efforts of law enforcement officials.

Read more about Miranda warning here:

https://brainly.com/question/2242029
#SPJ1

Answer:

False

Explanation:

The government can not order states to pass a law