c. the republican government lost power to the democratic party
Answer:
A. It would allow the delegates to speak openly and honestly with each other
D. It would prevent the delegates from being pressured by the public
Explanation:
A. It would allow the delegates to speak openly and honestly with each other
[] With the secrecy rule, the delegates could speak openly since this would not reach the public. It helped to let them make decisions since there was less pressure from the public (ties into option D).
D. It would prevent the delegates from being pressured by the public
[] If the public didn't know what was going on, they could not pressure
The second and third options do not make sense because the delegates wanted everyone to attend (they also wanted the votes to be as unanimous as possible) and they were not planning specific military strategies at this time.
Have a nice day!
I hope this is what you are looking for, but if not - comment! I will edit and update my answer accordingly.
- Heather
On May 31, 1961, Meredith, with backing of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging that the university had rejected him only because of his race, as he had a highly successful record of military service and academic courses.
No, the freedom of speech is one of the most important rights in a democracy along with the freedom of press. It allows several voices to rise and be heard. But it does not means that you can say whatever you want whenever you want.
You can find the foundations of the freedom of speech in the first amendment where it says:
<em>"Amendment I
</em>
<em>
</em>
<em>Congress </em><em>shall make no law </em><em>respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or </em><em>abridging the freedom of speech</em><em>, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" </em>
But there are exceptions to the rule. You can´t say whatever you want as the supreme court have showed in several cases. From this we can extract some categories where the first amendment doesn´t work:
- Incitement: When its directed to inciting or producing inminent lawless action.
- False statements of facts: there are some types of this unprotected according to the supreme court: those said with <em>"sufficiently culpable mental state" </em>can be subject of criminal or civil liability. Secondly libel and slander and finally negligent statements or facts can be subject of civil liability.
As a conclusion we can say that the freedom of speech is a fundamental right in a healthy democracy but we must take care of it. We can´t say whatever we want, well actually we can but you have to be responsible of your acts.
the goernemt cannot stop peoplr from practicing their religion.
The government can't create a national religion or make laws that religious organizations have to follow.
