if you want to remove an article from website contact us from top.

    the restrictions imposed by the schenck decision most directly contradicted which of the following earlier developments in the united states?

    James

    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    get the restrictions imposed by the schenck decision most directly contradicted which of the following earlier developments in the united states? from EN Bilgi.

    AP Classroom Period 7 Flashcards

    Start studying AP Classroom Period 7. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.

    AP Classroom Period 7

    3.3 3 Reviews

    "As the early years at Hull House show, female participation in that area of reform grew out of a set of needs and values peculiar to middle-class women in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Settlement workers did not set out to become reformers. They were rather women trying to fulfill existing social expectations for self-sacrificing female service while at the same time satisfying their need for public recognition, authority, and independence. In the process of attempting to weave together a life of service and professional accomplishment, they became reformers as the wider world defined them."

    — Robyn Muncy, historian, Creating a Female Dominion in American Reform, 1890-1935, published in 1991

    Which of the following was the most direct effect of the trend described in the excerpt?

    A. The development of the Progressive movement to address social problems associated with industrial society

    B. The emergence of the Populist Party's efforts to increase the role of government in the economy

    C. The election of large numbers of women to political offices

    D. The increased participation of women in factory work

    Click card to see definition 👆

    A. The development of the Progressive movement to address social problems associated with industrial society

    Click again to see term 👆

    "I believe, we shall find arguments in favor of the retention of the Philippines as possessions of great value and a source of great profit to the people of the United States which cannot be overthrown. First, as to the islands themselves. They are over a hundred thousand square miles in extent, and are of the greatest richness and fertility. From these islands . . . there is no tropical product which cannot be raised in abundance. . . .

    "A much more important point is to be found in the markets which they furnish. The total value of exports and imports for 1896 amounted in round numbers to $29,000,000. . . . There can be no doubt that the islands in our peaceful possession would take from us a very large proportion of their imports. . . . With the development of the islands and the increase of commerce and of business activity the consumption of foreign imports would rapidly advance, and of this increase we should reap the chief benefit. . . .

    ". . . Manila, with its magnificent bay, is the prize and the pearl of the East. In our hands it will become one of the greatest distributing points, one of the richest emporiums of the world's commerce. Rich in itself, with all its fertile islands behind it, it will . . . enable American enterprise and intelligence to take a master share in all the trade of the Orient! We have been told that arguments like these are sordid. Sordid indeed! . . . A policy which proposes to open wider markets to the people of the United States . . . seems to me a great and noble policy."

    Henry Cabot Lodge, senator, speech to the United States Senate, 1900

    Which of the following best explains Lodge's point of view on markets in the excerpt?

    A. Many Americans believed that acquiring island territories would encourage economic development.

    B. Republican business leaders lobbied for imperial expansion to provide locations for new factories.

    C. Political leaders claimed that the lives of Native Americans could be improved if they moved to new overseas colonies.

    D. Democrats argued that the United States should focus on domestic economic development over international trade.

    Click card to see definition 👆

    A. Many Americans believed that acquiring island territories would encourage economic development.

    Click again to see term 👆

    1/30 Created by bella088

    Terms in this set (30)

    "As the early years at Hull House show, female participation in that area of reform grew out of a set of needs and values peculiar to middle-class women in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Settlement workers did not set out to become reformers. They were rather women trying to fulfill existing social expectations for self-sacrificing female service while at the same time satisfying their need for public recognition, authority, and independence. In the process of attempting to weave together a life of service and professional accomplishment, they became reformers as the wider world defined them."

    — Robyn Muncy, historian, Creating a Female Dominion in American Reform, 1890-1935, published in 1991

    Which of the following was the most direct effect of the trend described in the excerpt?

    A. The development of the Progressive movement to address social problems associated with industrial society

    B. The emergence of the Populist Party's efforts to increase the role of government in the economy

    C. The election of large numbers of women to political offices

    D. The increased participation of women in factory work

    A. The development of the Progressive movement to address social problems associated with industrial society

    "I believe, we shall find arguments in favor of the retention of the Philippines as possessions of great value and a source of great profit to the people of the United States which cannot be overthrown. First, as to the islands themselves. They are over a hundred thousand square miles in extent, and are of the greatest richness and fertility. From these islands . . . there is no tropical product which cannot be raised in abundance. . . .

    Source : quizlet.com

    apush%20wwi%20&%20twenties%20test%20ail.pptx

    View Test Prep - apush%20wwi%20&%20twenties%20test%20ail.pptx from APUSH 108 at University of California, Davis. WWI & Twenties Test "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a

    apush%20wwi%20&%20twenties%20test%20ail.pptx - WWI &...

    University of California, Davis

    APUSH 108 Test Prep joelearn123 32

    This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 32 pages.

    WWI & Twenties Test"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing apanic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature asto create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It isa question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such ahindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them asprotected by any constitutional right."Majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court inSchenck v. United States,1919Use the Quote to answer Questions 1 - 2•1. The restrictions imposed by the Schenck decision most directly contradicted which of the followingearlier developments in the United States?•(A)Arguments for self-government asserted in the Declaration of Independence•(B)Protection of liberties through the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791•(C)Assertion of federal power over states' rights in the 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland decision•(D)Expansion of voting rights during President Andrew Jackson's administration

    We have textbook solutions for you!

    The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.

    Chapter 11 / Exercise 5

    Essentials of Economics

    Mankiw Expert Verified View Solutions

    Browse all Textbook Solutions

    Upload your study docs or become a

    Course Hero member to access this document

    Upload your study docs or become a

    Course Hero member to access this document

    End of preview. Want to read all 32 pages?

    Upload your study docs or become a

    Course Hero member to access this document

    Term Summer Professor ANONYMOUS Tags Report

    Students who viewed this also studied

    Bookmarked 0 Recently viewed

    APUSH 108

    apush%20wwi%20&%20twenties%20test%20ail.pptx

    Viewing now

    Interested in apush%20wwi%20&%20twenties%20test%20ail.pptx

    ?

    Bookmark it to view later.

    Other Related Materials

    Other Related Materials

    Source : www.coursehero.com

    Schenck v. United States (1919) (article)

    The First Amendment: freedom of speech

    Schenck v. United States (1919)

    Google ClassroomFacebookTwitter

    Email

    Key points

    Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were convicted under the 1917 Espionage Act for mailing leaflets encouraging men to resist the military draft. They appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the conviction violated their free speech rights.

    The Supreme Court upheld their convictions, ruling that speech that creates a “clear and present danger” (by encouraging violence or insurrection, or endangering national security) is not protected by the First Amendment.

    Background of the case

    The United States entered World War I on the side of the Allies in 1917, after several years of maintaining its neutrality. President Woodrow Wilson had campaigned for reelection in 1916 on the slogan “He Kept Us Out of War.” This abrupt change in policy meant there were many Americans who disagreed with the decision to go to war.

    As part of the war effort, the US government attempted to quell dissent. For example, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, which outlawed interfering with military operations or recruitment, as well as supporting US enemies during wartime. Although it has been altered many times over the years, the Espionage Act is still in force today.

    In this climate, socialist antiwar activists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer mailed 15,000 fliers urging men to resist the military draft through peaceful means, such as petitioning for the repeal of the conscription law. They argued that the draft was a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude.

    Schenck and Baer were convicted under the Espionage Act for interfering with military recruitment. They appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Espionage Act violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

    The Constitutional question at stake

    Were Schenck’s actions protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

    Decision

    No, Schenck’s actions were not protected by the free speech clause. The Court upheld the Espionage Act, ruling that the speech creating a “clear and present danger” was not protected by the First Amendment.

    The Court took the context of wartime into consideration in its opinion. Writing for the majority, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., described the Court’s reasoning:

    “We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done . . .

    The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic . . . 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 . . .

    When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.”

    [What does this mean?]

    Why does Schenck v. United States matter?

    The Court ruled in Schenck v. United States (1919) that speech creating a “clear and present danger” is not protected under the First Amendment. This decision shows how the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment sometimes sacrifices individual freedoms in order to preserve social order. In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court prioritized the power of the federal government over an individual’s right to freedom of speech.

    The “clear and present danger” test established in Schenck no longer applies today. Later cases, like New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), bolstered freedom of speech and the press, even in cases concerning national security. Freedom of speech is still not absolute, however; the Court has permitted time, place, and manner restrictions that may regulate when, where, and how individuals exercise free speech.

    What do you think?

    Do you think the Court made the right decision in Schenck v. United States? Why or why not?

    When, if ever, should the government be permitted to restrict free speech?

    The First Amendment: freedom of speech

    Schenck v. United States (1919)

    This is the currently selected item.

    Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

    Freedom of speech: lesson overview

    Practice: Freedom of speech

    Next lesson

    The First Amendment: freedom of the press

    Sort by:

    Want to join the conversation?

    Log in Gianna Scarpelli 3 years ago

    Posted 3 years ago. Direct link to Gianna Scarpelli's post “what Supreme Court judges...”

    what Supreme Court judges were involved in this case?

    Athul Gopakumar Nair

    3 years ago

    Posted 3 years ago. Direct link to Athul Gopakumar Nair's post “Justice Holmes, Justice W...”

    Justice Holmes, Justice White, Justice McKenna, Justice Day, Justice Van Devanter, Justice Pitney, Justice McReynolds, Justice Brandeis, and Justice Clarke

    Rachel

    Source : www.khanacademy.org

    Do you want to see answer or more ?
    James 11 month ago
    4

    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    Click For Answer