The federal government can order states
to pass laws is
False
True

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

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:Im pretty sure the answer is civil liberties.

Explanation:

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

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.