I'm writing a paper explaining how the constitution and its european influences support our modern ideas about american citizenship and the rights and responsibilities of being a citizen
can someone me like give me some ideas i'm stuck on this paper : /

In griswold v. connecticut, on what did justice goldberg base his concurring opinion? the protection granted by the constitution the intention of the writers of the constitution the list of rights in the first eight amendments the human rights safe from government intervention

Awoman was found strangled in the basement of her home where she lived with her husband. the crime scene was processed and investigators left. the next day, the medical examiner reported that a scalloped, woven belt was used to strangle the victim. the police asked the husband to search the house again to look for such a belt and he agreed. a belt was found that matched marks on the victim. the man was arrested. his attorney made a motion that the belt be excluded from the evidence as he contended that the search was not legal. which statement is true? a. the belt should be excluded because the search was not legal. the police did not obtain a search warrant, as needed according to the fourth amendment to the u.s. constitution. b. the belt is admissible because the man gave his consent to the second search. c. the belt should be excluded because the search was not legal. the police did not obtain a search warrant, as need according to michigan v. tyler. d. the belt is admissible as evidence, according to mincey v. arizona.

Research and review one of the following cases: 1. eeoc vs abercrombie and fitch inc. 2. young vs ups 3. vance vs ball state university after you have thought through and understand the case answer the following: 1. explain the facts of the case leading to the dispute. 2. define and show understanding of each of the terms assigned to your case. break the laws into components where necessary. eeoc vs abercrombie and fitch inc: 1) eeoc, 2) title vii, 3) disparate treatment discrimination, 4)disparate impact discrimination vance vs ball state university: 1) eeoc, 2) title vii, 3) hostile work environment, 4) a supervisor for title vii purposes young vs ups: 1) title vii, 2) pregnancy discrimination act, 3)american's with disabilities act, 4) reasonable accommodation 3.how do the above concepts come into play in the case? 4. what rule of law came from the case? what did the court decide? 5. based on your understanding of employment law was the ruling correct? explain using a legal principle.