Roosevelt's Corollary was an addition to the Monroe Doctrine that declared the United States could intervene, or use military force to keep peace, in Latin American countries when necessary. Dollar Diplomacy focused on business. Taft believed the United States should invest in other countries to countries. Taft used millions of dollars to help unstable Latin America.
B. He was tired of all the violence in the Indiana Territory.
C. He wanted to set up a powerful trading network to revival that of the Americans.
D. He knew that if the tribes remained divided they would eventually be conquered by the Americans.
B. Immigration was much easier because of faster processing.
C. Immigration was better organized, so most immigrants had jobs before they arrived and moved quickly to assimilate all over the country.
D. Immigrants in the late 1800s came with greater wealth and more education than earlier immigrants.
2. How did U.S. participation in World War I affect the American civilian population?
A. Children over age 14 had to take jobs because there was a labor shortage.
B. Fewer farmers were able to produce crops, so there were food shortages across the country.
C. Civilians could not keep up with the supply demands of the military.
D. With men drafted to serve in the military, jobs became available for women and minorities.
3. Which was not a cause of the Great Depression?
A. bank crises
B. high taxes on the wealthy
C. stock speculation
D. falling purchasing power
4. How did women play a role in World War II?
A. by producing inspirational radio programs that were broadcast to GIs
B. by starting a letter writing campaign to servicemen
C. by running for political offices that men were unavailable to fill
D. by enlisting in the military and working in civilian jobs that had typically been held by men
Answer:
Azerbaijan
Explanation:
correct on plato
As a result of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), nothing suspects say can be used against them in court unless they are informed about their rights.
Further Explanation:
The decision of the “Miranda versus Arizona” stated that the individuals who are arrested must be notified about their “constitutional rights”, being arrested or questioned. As per the decision, the 5th Amendment act prohibits prosecutors from using suspect speech made at the time of custody and questioning. It is individuals’ legal right to consult an attorney before being interrogated.
The case was considered a drastic change in the “American Criminal law” as it altered the extended the importance of the 5th Amendment. Earlier, it was considered that the act will protect the citizens against the obligation to contempt and confess in the court and after the decision; it became mandatory to inform individuals about their rights. This procedure also referred to as Miranda warning and oral notifications given to the arrestee during custody.
Learn More:
1. in Furman v. Georgia (1972), the supreme court ruled in William Furman’s favor, saying that Georgia had
2. Though the outcomes of the Schenck and New York Times differed, what did these decisions have in common? The government has a heavy burden to prove harm. The government can limit speech that causes harm. The government has unlimited power to limit speech. The government must follow the first amendment.
Answer Details:
Grade: High School
Chapter: Miranda versus Arizona
Subject: History
Keywords: Miranda versus Arizona, constitutional rights, amendment, custody, legal right, attorney, criminal law, court
food service workers
telephone company operators
air traffic controllers