Crcexecrxececececececececrcecececececececececececececrcrcrcrcexexexexexexexexexexexececececrcecececrcrcexexexexrxececvucucuvuvuvuvuvj i j j j u i i ivuvivvuvuvuvuvuvubuvuvuvuvuvuvububibiqbzibxwibxwibxiwbxiwbxw
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Yes, the growing number of interest groups support US Senator Byrd’s conclusion.
There is too much money involved in interest groups, and an increasing number of these groups have been appearing in the United States political scene. Senator Byrd was worried about this increased number and lack of control over these groups. Let's have in mind that these interest groups hire lobbyists to negotiate with legislators and offer support. But the US Congressmen had to be aware that it is the citizens that voted for them and put them in Congress as their representatives. So they serve the people, not the particular agendas of interest groups.
I think one is good but I'm not sure
It’s A. The bill of rights was added to the constitution to protect right including free speech
The Connecticut Compromise (also known as the Great Compromise of 1787 or Sherman Compromise) was an agreement that large and small states reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that in part defined the legislative structure and representation that each state would have under the United States Constitution. It retained the bicameral legislature as proposed by Roger Sherman, along with proportional representation of the states in the lower house, but required the upper house to be weighted equally among the states. Each state would have two representatives in the upper house.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise
