Answer:
The Equal protection clause.
Explanation:
The doctrine of separate but igual is unconstituional.
Marbury v Madison helped as a background for this case, since the Supremacy Clause of Article VI is the supreme law for the whole land.
"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.
Your answer would be To protect the Spanish territory from the french
Hope i helped :)
Had to look for the missing details and here is my answer.
The passage is actually taken from Robert Owen's "A New View of Society" and according to this passage, the theory that was rejected by Karl Marx is the <span>Laissez-faire economics. Hope this answer helps.</span>
