Answer:
4 is answer i think if wrong dont report me pls
Answer:
i believe the answer is A
Explanation:
a
Answer:
In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court <u><em>ruled that bans on dangerous speech were constitutional.</em></u>
Explanation:
In the 1919 Supreme Court case of Schenck v. the United States, the court deemed the actions of Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer as unconstitutional. It deemed them criminals for trying to obstruct the government's drafting of men for war and that it is an act against the security of the nation.
This case revolves around the claim that the obstruction of Schenck and Baer's free speech was unconstitutional and they have the right to express their opinions. But the court insisted that since the leaflets they distributed were against national security, the First Amendment doesn't apply to them.
Thus, the correct answer is the second option.
Pleased father when took over
business
Admired in Boston area
Unsuccessful soldier
Loudly yelled that the British
were coming
Rode as a mail carrier
Excellent spy against British
Very clever with Sons of
Liberty
Encouraged protesting taxes
Ringer of Old North Church bells
to spread word
E<span>very silver object treasured
– even buttons</span>
Answer: It's a system often perceived as undemocratic, and it's received its fair share of derision and outrage. Most controversially, it's occasionally resulted in somebody becoming president without receiving a majority of votes. There have been many attempts to rectify this, and the Every Vote Counts Amendment is one of them.
Explanation:
