According to the courts majority opinion, " the prosecution may not use statements stemming from interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self incrimination" how has this impacted the rights of accused persons? under what circumstances would a self incriminating statement be admissible in court?

Explanation:

Miranda vs Arizona 1966. the decision of this case has impacted the right of accused persons positively as they are protected from the excesses of law enforcement agencies. since they are aware of their right to counsel during interrogation and the right to keep silent, they are better protected and the general rights of citizens are protected.

self incriminating statements can be admitted in court after the individual has been read his or her fifth and sixth amendment rights commonly known as the Miranda rights and he or she still goes ahead to make incriminating statements.

trade regulation is a field of law, often bracketed with antitrust (as in the phrase “antitrust and trade regulation law”), including government regulation of unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive business acts or practices. antitrust law is often considered a subset of trade regulation law. franchise and distribution law, consumer protection law, and advertising law are sometimes considered parts of trade regulation law.

in general the theory of economics says that the more open to trade a country is the better   the result for the same country and the whole economies.

in real life countries impose taxes, quotas, etc which is not so good for the economies.

this kind of commercial war between the usa and china is slowing down the growth of the whole world so we can say that it is a draw back of trade regulations. and the free trade agreements are benefits of trade regulations.

answer; presidential election years;