Answer:
The Court ruled in Schenck v. United States (1919) that speech creating a “clear and present danger” is not protected under the First Amendment. This decision shows how the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment sometimes sacrifices individual freedoms in order to preserve social order. In Schenck v.
Explanation:
Answer:
I'm not sure if this a question or not but all the information on this is right except the last one. there are political parties in iran.
Explanation:
Answer:
In hindsight, <u>from the Gilded Age </u><u>monopolists </u><u>perspective they would say that they have pushed too far with manipulation of prices and thus brought negative reaction and counter measures from the general public.</u> In particular, farmers in the Western country demanded that the government set maximum prices on railroads because monopolist had uncontrolled pricing power. Through the Granger movement they achieved passing of some of the ‘Granger Laws’ and set pricing limit on some services.
This concerned other industries as well. For example, the famous <u>Robber baron</u> Vanderbilt was competing with steamboat monopoly that controlled transportation between New York City and Albany. Using populist rhetoric and peoples line to bring down monopolies, he was trying to pave the way for his own business. Meanwhile, <u>the monopolistic Hudson River Steamboat Association end up paying him a great amount of money so that he would stop doing it</u>.
The law of supply states<span> that the quantity of a good supplied (i.e., the amount owners or producers offer for sale) rises as the market price rises, and falls as the price falls. Conversely, the </span>law<span> of demand (see demand) says that the quantity of a good demanded falls as the price rises, and vice versa.</span>
