This is a conflict of individual rights versus state protection. For some, the individual rights come first even if it is an attack on others or could put the country at risk. For others, the protection of the country is more important and therefore a person who speaks in a way that threatens the country should and can be silenced.
Schenck v. US is a famous case where the court ruled if the speech presents a danger to the country then the 1st Amendment right is not applicable and can be denied.
Tinker v. Des Moines School District demonstrated when a person peacefully protest even in a school against the government and their decisions (Vietnam War in this case), then the 1st Amendment is applied and the individual rights upheld.
It decreased to the point that only there were only really Catholics they wanted to rule the Church and it seemed wrong for people to have other Religions, so the Number of Catholic people Increased. Hope That helped!
Answer:
No
Explanation:
First of all, who would be the one giving the task?
Second of all, the people must be able to accept change for them to experience change.
Third of all, who would take on the task? Which country/people? Who would provide the resources, fundings, & volunteers to help "improve" the world.
Fourth, what kind of improvements are we talking about? Is it really beneficial, or does it just help with foreign government agendas?
Fifth, would there be any "extra's" that those parts of the world have to take on? Would they be called upon later on to help even when they cannot? Help usually have strings attached, and they would force obligation on the beneficiary to return the favor at a later time.
Of course, if the parts of the world wants to be improved, and there is the resources and funds to do so, then yes, Roosevelt is right in "improving" those parts of the world.
~
I haven’t done this in a long time so don’t hold me set on this but if i remember right then it’s between B and D
