What body acted as the “government” when the Revolutionary War broke out even though they had no legal authority to do so?
Ans: The Second Continental Congress
You might also like to view...
Xavier was a member of the Texas Grange. Which of the following was he likely to believe?
a. The railroad companies were responsible for the declining fortunes of Texan farmers. b. African Americans should play a greater part in government and policymaking. c. Government spending on social service and rural betterment should be doubled. d. The splitting Texas into East and West Texas would result in more effective policymaking.
According to transformationalists, why is sovereignty sometimes more fluid than one might think?
A. States find it increasingly difficult to deal with contemporary problems such as refugee flows. B. A state's wealth is the main factor determining whether its sovereignty is respected by others. C. Some states such as those in sub-Saharan Africa are too weak to protect their sovereignty. D. International organizations such as the EU erode state sovereignty.
Which of these interest groups has been most successful at providing selective benefits in order to attract members?
A) National Rifle Association (NRA) D) American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) B) AFL/CIO E) Sierra Club C) National Organization for Women (NOW)
The First Amendment says in part, "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…" Yet in the well-known case Schenck v. U.S
(1919) the Supreme Court decided unanimously that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment free speech clause, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes developed his famous "clear and present danger" test ("the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent"). This test suggests that there are cases in which Congress can abridge an individual's freedom to speech. How can you make sense of this decision in light of the language of the free speech clause? a. The Supreme Court was wrong in this case; the Espionage Act is on its face unconstitutional. b. The free speech clause, like many aspects of the Constitution, is vague and thus subject to multiple interpretations. c. The Espionage Act was constitutional but not for the reasons Holmes and the Court suggested in their 1919 decision. d. There is only one way to read the Constitution; in this case, the founders would have agreed that "no laws" means "no laws," so the act is unconstitutional. e. The free speech clause is unique in that unlike other aspects of the Constitution, it has been open to many different interpretations throughout U.S. history.