It owned production, distribution and exchange. Kind of primitive communism.
Congress has the ability to to change the Court's appellate jurisdiction
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -- The First Amendment
The inhabitants of the North American colonies did not have a legal right to express opposition to the British government that ruled them. Nonetheless, throughout the late 1700s, these early Americans did voice their discontent with the Crown. For example, they strongly denounced the British parliament's enactment of a series of taxes to pay off a large national debt that England had incurred in its Seven Years War with France. In newspaper articles, pamphlets and through boycotts, the colonists raised what would become their battle cry: "No taxation without representation!" And in 1773, the people of the Massachusetts Bay Colony demonstrated their outrage at the tax on tea in a dramatic act of civil disobedience: the Boston Tea Party.
The early Americans also frequently criticized the much-despised local representatives of the Crown. But they protested at their peril, for the English common law doctrine of "seditious libel" had been incorporated into the law of the American colonies. That doctrine permitted prosecution for "false, scandalous and malicious writing" that had "the intent to defame or to bring into contempt or disrepute" a private party or the government. Moreover, the law did not even accomodate the truth as a defense: in 15th century England, where absolute obedience to the Crown was considered essential to public safety, to call the king a fool or predict his demise was a crime punishable by death.
Answer:
People were afraid that a strong central government could mean that the people got no say. They were scared that it could lead to a monarchy
Explanation:
Well, thew only one that really makes sense to me is C.
