Answer:
Clay believed that if Texas is be received into the Union as an integral part of it then it will destabilize the union and instead of acquiring Texas, it is better to compose and harmonize the present union rather than introducing as new component that would further add to the existing element of discord and distraction. He said that acquisition of foreign land is not right if it is done for strengthening one part against another part of the common confederacy and this can lead to dissolution of the Union
Explanation:
Clay believed that if Texas is be received into the Union as an integral part of it then it will destabilize the union and instead of acquiring Texas, it is better to compose and harmonize the present union rather than introducing as new component that would further add to the existing element of discord and distraction. He said that acquisition of foreign land is not right if it is done for strengthening one part against another part of the common confederacy and this can lead to dissolution of the Union
The correct answer to this question is "as different as possible." Karen is a judge hearing the case of local dispatch co. v. national transport corp. applying the relevant rule of law to the facts of the case requireskaren to find previously decided cases that, in relation to the case under consideration, are <span>as different as possible</span>
Answer:
Once Congress has passed a bill, the president has the power to veto that bill. In turn, Congress can override a regular presidential veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses. ... By passing amendments to the Constitution, Congress can effectively check the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Explanation:
<span>Confucius encouraged education and valued study over intuition. Following his structure of society, he believed that the young should learn from the old and study classical texts.</span>
Answer:
A. limit free speech.
Explanation:
The first amendment of United States constitution protect the citizens' ability for "Free speech". This law was intended to give the citizens with the power to protest the government. But many people interpret it as the ability to say whatever they want to other people without consequences.
The "clear and present danger' test was devised by the Supreme Court. The consist of standards that law enforcement can follow to differentiate "Free speech" and assault.
As a general rule, If the speech that given by a person either threatening the welfare of individuals, disrupt public order, or agitating other individuals to be a target for attack, that speech would no longer be protected by the 1st amendment.
