当前位置:首页 » 翻译 
  • 匿名
关注:1 2013-05-23 12:21

求翻译:This same issue came up during the gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago, which asked whether the Second Amendnent was applicable to the states via the 14th Amendment. In that case, it was Thomas whose landmark concurring opinion offered something of a history lesson on the 14th Amendment and its original public meaning. So it is strange indeed to find Thomas apparently ignoring the relevent historical information here.是什么意思?

待解决 悬赏分:1 - 离问题结束还有
This same issue came up during the gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago, which asked whether the Second Amendnent was applicable to the states via the 14th Amendment. In that case, it was Thomas whose landmark concurring opinion offered something of a history lesson on the 14th Amendment and its original public meaning. So it is strange indeed to find Thomas apparently ignoring the relevent historical information here.
问题补充:

  • 匿名
2013-05-23 12:26:38
这个同样的问题在枪权利案诉芝加哥,询问,第二个 Amendnent 是否适用于第十四条修正案通过国家麦当劳的过程中走来。在这种情况下,它是的托马斯的具有里程碑意义的同意意见提供一些东西第 14 修正案和原有的公共意义的历史课。所以很奇怪确实很难找到托马斯显然无视相关历史信息在这里。
 
 
网站首页

湖北省互联网违法和不良信息举报平台 | 网上有害信息举报专区 | 电信诈骗举报专区 | 涉历史虚无主义有害信息举报专区 | 涉企侵权举报专区

 
关 闭