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:
The answer is : The demand would most likely increasing
Phrases such as "all boots must go" tend to be used if the businesses want to restock its warehouse with new products. Because of this, it is very likely that they would sell the boots under a huge discount. According to the law of demand, this decrease in price would increase the number of demand from consumers.
Answer:
How did a pool differ from a trust? Pools were made of independent companies, but a trust was not.
