While all 3 of B, C, and D played some roll in their decisions, C and D are the only to possible ones in my eyes as secession was not a hot button issue until Carolina's calls for it. I'd reckon it's a 50-50 between C and D, so I'd choose D.
"The power to prevent harmful speech against government" was the power given to Congress by the “clear and present danger” rule.
<u>Option: B</u>
<u>Explanation:</u>
It is a doctrine introduced by the U.S. Supreme Court to decide in which conditions to impose limitations on the First Amendments. This was developed in the Schenck vs. US situation. This was a freedom of speech test so it's not being abused for the country's assault.
The "clear and present danger" principle advocated the use of an improvement test to monitor the state's limits of free speech on a case-by-case basis. If the Court found that there was a "clear and present danger" that the discussion would produce mischief that Congress had taboo, then the state would be legitimized in restricting the discussion at that stage.
1. lose what they fought for
2. many soldiers die
3. country can go in det
I'm pretty sure it's democracy.
