Civil Rights

equality

Civil Rights: The rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.

Sentence: The African Americans were segregated from the whites, therefore the government made Civil Rights to treat the blacks just the same as whites.

Yes. Driving on public roads isn't a right, it's a privilege that has to be earned by getting a driver's license. So Police has the right to stop anyone to check if they have a license or not.

racial and gender discrimination

Yes. Midgets(small people) are allowed to vote if the are at the legal age of voting 18.

The Miranda rights in Alabama are the same as they are across the United States. Reading the Miranda rights became a national precedent in 1966. They are the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney.

Miranda Rights may be read at any time prior to interrogation.

I believe the politically correct term is African American. So far as I know you won't get arrested for a hate crime by using the word Negro, but from what I've heard and gathered it's better to use African American.

The legal branch of the government is most responsible for the Miranda Rights. The rights are written into the law in the 5th and 6th amendments to the Constitution. In 1966 the supreme court set a precedent for these rights to be read to anyone accused of a crime.

You could argue either model. Nevertheless, the Miranda Warning is based on the procedural rationality model. The important thing here is not the rationality or total correctness of the goal or task. The importance relies on the procedure in which the goal is achieved.

The Miranda rights grant you the right to remain silent, so that you don't say something that incriminates yourself. They give you the right to an attorney whether or not you can afford one. They guarantee that the police can use what you say in court.

Probably not. I would think that your attorney is there to advise you.

The Miranda rights guaranteed that an individuals' rights would be protected even when he was accused of a crime. Before this many suspects were unsure of their rights. They would say things they didn't mean because they thought it would stop the interrogation or they didn't know they could get a lawyer.

We don't call them 'Miranda Rights' in the UK, there's just a standard statement that a police officer will give to a suspect when they are arrested. I can't remember it word for word, but it is very similar to:

"I am arresting you on suspicion of...."(whatever the suspicion may be). "You don't have to say anything, but anything that you DO say may be taken down and used in evidence against you in a court of law".

No only the husband or wife can apply to the court if they have grounds (generally) EXCEPT in cases of underage maariage without consent or mental illness (generally)

Miranda does not grant individuals any specific rights. It ensures that people are notified of the rights that they have, including the right to counsel and the right against self incrimination.

A most excellent question not asked nearly enough nor discussed often enough. Webster's ninth new collegiate dictionary defines civil rights as such:

The non political rights of a citizen: The rights of personal liberty guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and by acts of Congress.

In other words, civil rights, sometimes called legal rights or statutory rights, are those rights granted by a particular polity codified by legal statutes by some form of legislative body. In simpler terms, they are the rights granted citizens by governments. Civil rights, then, are pieces of positive law that stand in stark contrast to the natural rights of men and women. Natural rights, sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights, are those rights inherent in people and do not require codification or any passage of legislation. The Bill of Rights, for example, is an example of natural rights as opposed to civil rights. That the Bill of Rights stands as law does not in any way alter the fact that those enumerated rights and even those not enumerated are natural rights that preexist governments and as far as the United States government is concerned their very purpose of being is to protect the inherent natural rights of people.

The line between civil rights and natural rights has long since blurred into an unfathomable world of gray where terms such as natural rights are considered antiquated. We read newspapers who on a daily basis will offer a story of someones who has had their basic right to express themselves freely denied and frame it in terms of civil rights. Indeed, the American Civil Liberties Union may take your case if it is an issue of freedom of expression but still it will be framed in terms of civil rights. Television shows will present compelling dramas where well spoken and passionate lawyers defend the right of the people to peaceably assemble and frame it in terms of civil rights. Police dramas routinely feature characters that complain about the rights of the accused and refer to it as civil rights. It is, at best, a confusing issue and perhaps has been since the inception of the Constitution.

James Madison had argued that the right to trial by jury was not a natural right because it was within the construct of government and government being an artifice so then are any rights existing within that construct. The reasoning of this argument is sound but is moot. It was the people who in order to form a more perfect union came together and formed a government in which they agreed to abide by certain laws and regulations and in doing so may from time to time find themselves in conflict with the government. Because the people formed that government they wisely made it so that the accused will be afforded all presumption of innocence until proven guilty and afforded, as is their right, a trial by jury, whereby their fate will be decided by their peers. Whatever artificiality may arise by declaring a right of trial by jury only stems from the peoples natural right to create such an artifice to begin with.

The confusion reached critical mass after the passage of the 14th Amendment. It is interesting to note that Webster's felt compelled to point to the 13th Amendment as well in defining civil rights. To declare the 14th Amendment as legislation granting rights to to United States citizens would be accurate as it does appear that this is exactly what the 14th Amendment does but the 13th Amendment does no such thing. The 13th Amendment is a prohibition Amendment and what it does is prohibit slavery. Sometimes called the emancipation clause, it does no such thing. The 13th Amendment did not grant freedom to slaves with in the United States, as those slaves all ready had the right to freedom. Their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness had been denied by the people who "owned" them as property. The tolerance of the slave trade ended with the passage of the 13th Amendment but has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights. Since the right to be free is a natural right, the 13th Amendment is quite clearly addressing a natural right.

It is the bedeviling 14th Amendment that presumes to grant to people rights they are all ready in possession of and this is not the only problem. Dissent amongst proponents of natural rights include anarchist who claim governments have no authority what so ever. Thus, we have political camps where some believe that rights are inalienable and preexist any government and there are those who believe rights are artificial constructs granted by governments. Those who believe all rights are granted by governments will continue to phrase all rights as civil rights and those who believe in natural rights will ask for clarification.

play 12 sky 2 or domo

Civil rights are the non political rights or privileges of citizens, especially the rights to personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.

Unless the grandparent is the legal guardian of the grandchild, or if the mother is still a juvenile, the grandparents have absolutely no responsibility to the grandchild.

yes

All should be treated as innocent til found guilty and sentenced. Then all the same type of offenders should be treated equally.

Because public figures benefit financially from being in the public eye. Publicity GENERALLY is useful and profitable to them. No rational adult expects everything reported about a celebrity to be true. Some innacuracy and hyperboly is tolerated in the high volume of material about them..

So falsehoods about a celebrity are tolerated to a degree not tolerated by non-celebrities.

The Cupid Shuffle is written by Cupid.