"The power to prevent harmful speech against government" was the power given to Congress by the “clear and present danger” rule.
<u>Option: B</u>
<u>Explanation:</u>
It is a doctrine introduced by the U.S. Supreme Court to decide in which conditions to impose limitations on the First Amendments. This was developed in the Schenck vs. US situation. This was a freedom of speech test so it's not being abused for the country's assault.
The "clear and present danger" principle advocated the use of an improvement test to monitor the state's limits of free speech on a case-by-case basis. If the Court found that there was a "clear and present danger" that the discussion would produce mischief that Congress had taboo, then the state would be legitimized in restricting the discussion at that stage.
Is a custom by which state judicial nominations appointed by the president are only confirmed if there are no objections by the senators from the state the appointee will serve.
AHA THE WASHINGTON POST... VERY CLASSY It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
Sacco and Vanzetti were both italian immigrants and avowed anarchists who advocated the violent overthrow of capitalism
