Civil Rights

explain the full purpose of title VII of the civil rights act of 1964.

This is a complicated legal issue that you should consider before having an intimate relationship with a woman who has a legal husband. First, as an unmarried father, he has no assumed rights to any child born to a woman he's not married to, so the initial problem is in establishing a right to even see the child. Second, in many states, the husband has a presumption of fatherhood, unless the mother chooses otherwise.

Generally, if the parents of a child are unmarried the mother has sole custody and control in most states until the father can establish his paternity. If the woman is already married to another man, this complicates the situation. Remember, a child's mother can always be identified by medical records. Since the father didn't give birth and he was not legally married at the time of the birth he must seek other means of establishing his paternity and that is done through paternity test.

A paternity test can be arranged through the court and once established the father can request visitations, custody and set up child support for the child. This will be costly and take many months to accomplish. By this time, the courts may not consider changing the circumstance of the child's living arrangements.

You cannot remove them from your record in any way. Different insurance companies use different time limits in order to underwrite risks. Most insurance companies use the last 3 years in order to rate your insurance premiums. There are some companies that rate for the previous 5 years. These are the only two periods that I am aware of in rating. Time is the only factor that can help you with tickets and accidents. Tickets and accidents are actually never removed from your driving record but the rating period of the company determines how long they effect your rate.

Yes. While officially denied for years, they did acknowledge it a few years ago, some six decades after the fact. And back then, just like now, they had told all the people answering the Census that it was completely confidential and that the information (such as on race) would never be disclosed.

There have been no disciplinary actions for that ever, nor has any policy of the U.S. Census Bureau ever changed in response to that complete violation of confidentiality.

Although the concept probably dates back thousands of years, it is generally attributed to Gandhi in India in the 1930.

Historically, the demoratic party has, of which the KKK arose out it because at one time, blacks voted Republican! Using the klan, the dems worked against black people OVERTLY, now they do it COVERTLY and they're STILL CLUELESS! 😒

The role of voters in an election is to get out and out. You also want to make sure you have looked into the items that are being voted upon before you get to your poling station.

The second civil rights act was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was championed and pushed forward mainly due to the efforts of President Lyndon Johnson. The second Civil Rights Act superseded the first, which was created in 1875 and was passed by the last biracial Congress of the 19th century.

The US Constitution and Declaration of Independence contributed much to the civil rights and liberties of the US political system. It is first important to distinguish the two documents. The Declaration was essentially a resolution passed by the Second Continental Congress to inform King George III that America had split. It had no real legal effect on the system, but it did provide a common ground of ideals (which were mainly borrowed from John Locke's work). The Preamble cites as natural rights "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," claims that "all men are created equal," and that when a government becomes counterproductive of achieving these goals, it is the right and duty of the governed to change that government. These ideas are the basis for American political culture, and have provided for several Supreme Court decisions that allowed advancements in civil liberties and rights. The actual legal basis of these rights, however, must come from the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified at first without individual rights, but, at the urging of some New England liberals, one was added. The majority of civil liberties and civil rights have their bases in the Bill of Rights (Amendments I-X), Amendment XIV, and the right to habeas corpus. Amendment I: Freedom of and from religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly and freedom of petition. This amendment gives you a LOT of personal rights. It essentially allows for dissent against the government, a legal basis for the right to change government talked of in the Declaration. Also, it secularizes the state, allowing that no religion may use religious law as basis for law. This gives you the right to moral relativism (as long as your rights do not impede on the life, liberty, or property of another citizen.) Amendment II: Right to militia and arms. This allows for citizen organized militia and weaponry, should the dissent allowed by Amendment I fail to work. Some people argue that gun control violates the second amendment, but most legal scholars cite that the language of the text does not provide a clear answer. Amendment IV: The right against searches . This is a big one: the right to privacy comes directly from amendment IV and subsequent Supreme Court decisions. Amendment V: "The Fifth" This amendment allows that you do not have to testify if your testimony would incriminate you. This is commonly called "pleading the fifth." Amendment VI: Due Process Amendment VI gives those accused of crimes the right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of their peers in the precinct in which the crime occured. This has been both strengthened and eroded by Supreme Court decisions. It also guarantees the right to legal counsel. Amendment VII: The right to jury trial in common law cases in which the value of the property in question is over $20. Amendment VIII: Amnesty from excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. These are pretty vague terms, but Supreme Court decisions have helped to clear up and grey area. Opponents of the death penalty, claim, and have succeeded before in claiming, that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. Amendment IX and X: These amendments say that the rights of the federal government and states do not abridge the rigths of the people and that those powers not enumerated to the federal government nor reserved for the states belong to the people. This concept of individual government (or, as in the declaration, liberty) is essential to the US system. Amendment XV: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This is the legal basis of equality, defined as an American ideal in the "all men are created equal" ideal of the Declaration. Habeas Corpus: the guarantee of habeas corpus is given in the text of the Constitution. It denies the government the ability to hold prisoners for an interminable amount of time without charging them of a crime. This is complemented by the sixth amendment. So, it is clear to see that the Declaration of Independence, while a very important philosophical document, did little for the legal environment of the United States. The Constitution manifested the ideas present in the Declaration in a legal sense.

Stokely Carmichhael

he married a 19 year old women named Louise Plessy was 25 at the age he married her they were 6 years apart

To get Federal involvement through the Interstate Commerce Commission, to get cases to the US Supreme Court if necessary. (because it was regulated by the federal government) <- novaNET answer. [novanetters unite!!]

Linda Brown was one of thirteen students whose parents instituted the Brown v. Board of Education lawsuit. This lawsuit overturned the previous Plessy v. Ferguson case that passed the "separate-but-equal" doctrine, essentially declaring that segregation in schools and other public places was illegal.

yes

Civil rights are not a absolute guarantee to all and need to be protected. Once lost they have to be fought for once again.

Federal courts hear cases involving the constitutionality of a law, cases involving the laws and treaties of the U.S. ambassadors and public ministers, disputes between two or more states, admiralty law, also known as maritime law, and bankruptcy cases.

Reagan's firing of striking air-traffic control workers

Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and Medgar Evers

Law enforcement are capable of releasing any photo that isn't in direct violation of the expected standards for handling evidence.

You may request that a photo not be released, and under most circumstances, I'd assume a reasonable Public Information Officer would try to appease your wishes. But, if the department feels the need to release information that may help solve the crime, they can (and will) do so.

This shouldn't even be a question. The laws were written to protect people from discrimination. There is no reason why people should be treated in unequal ways because who they are. No one is better than anyone else and laws have been made to insure people are treated equally.

i can't

In order to search you the police require reason to be suspicious. If someone makes such a claim and its believable the yes they can,

A person should not be put in a lineup without the benefit of counsel, as this can violate their right to legal representation and due process. The presence of counsel helps ensure that the lineup is conducted fairly and protects the individual's rights against potential coercion or misidentification. Legal representation can also safeguard against any potential biases in the lineup process. Overall, the presence of counsel is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the justice system.

This depends partly on what school system we are talking about. Is it primary and secondary school, special schools such as technical colleges, military or police academies or universities in general? The basic thing to think about here is that enrolling in a school means agreeing to the rules used and set by that institution. If these rules are withing the limits of the law of the country, and not deemed unfair by those in charge of education, for example the officials working in a ministry of education, or those of a school board, then little can be said against them. Students as well as other people have certain rights according to the constitution of any country. If there is a question of unfair school rules overriding those rights, or human rights as agreed to and stated in international agreements signed by a country's government, then that issue would most likely have to be settled in court, or by appeal to the minister of education or a similar official.

That is a violation of your right to a quick and speedy trial granted in the Constitution. You can sue the government for that 40 million and get your bail. #itpaystobeacynic