Question text jake was recently arrested for vagrancy after a policeman found him sleeping in a public park. after a month, jake still has not been brought in front of a judge to hear the charges against him. which of jake's rights listed below have been violated in this scenario? select one: a. habeas corpus b. peaceable assembly c. free speech d. ex post facto

The correct answer is A. Habeas corpus

Explanation:

In law and related fields, Habeas corpus refers to a principle that establishes all individuals that are arrested should be taken to a judge to guarantee their detention is lawful which means there are reasons or evidence that the individual committed and crime and the process of detention follow the law. In the same way, an individual might be released in the case the habeas corpus principle is not followed.

In the case of Jake, habeas corpus has been violated because despite he was arrested, he has not been brought in front of a judge that guarantees the detention was lawful, and Jake committed a crime or offense which is part of Habeas corpus principle.

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.