<span>I was the battle of Alamo in march 6, 1836</span>
"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.
Answer:
The correct answer is D. It is not correct to try to convince the other person to agree with you when having a meaningful political conversation.
Explanation:
When talking about political issues, they often deal with controversial issues that can turn friendly talk into heated discussion. Therefore, as a way to prevent this, there are certain guidelines that must be taken into account.
Thus, not shouting, speaking personally and contemplating the opinion of the other party are fundamental criteria when it comes to having a serious and friendly political debate. In this way, cordiality regulates the content of the talk, and the acceptance of the thought different from the other (without the need to share it) gives legitimacy to the idea of the other person.
On the other hand, if in the conversation one of the parties tries to convince the other of its ideology, the conversation will most likely fail. This is so because when trying to convince, the other person's belief or conviction is discredited, a question that many people can take as a personal insult. Therefore, it is totally inadvisable to carry out this type of actions.
The correct answer will be C!!!
Yes. It was a compromise between the small states and the large states over the issue of representation in Congress. The result was a bicameral Congress with the Senate being equally represented by 2 Senators from each state and the House of Representatives membership based on heach state's population
