GED social studies

According to the CDC, which of the following best describes if the multiple studies have shown regarding any link between autism and vaccinations? Do Vaccines Cause Autism? Some people have had concerns that Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) might be linked to the vaccines children receive, but studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing ASD. In 2011, an Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on eight vaccines given to children and adults found that with rare exceptions, these vaccines are very safe. A 2013 CDC study [PDF - 204 KB] added to the research showing that vaccines do not cause ASD. The study looked at the number of antigens (substances in vaccines that cause the body's immune system to produce disease-fighting antibodies) from vaccines during the first two years of life. The results showed that the total amount of antigen from vaccines received was the same between children with ASD and those that did not have ASD. One vaccine ingredient that has been studied specifically is thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used to prevent contamination of multi-dose vials of vaccines. Research shows that thimerosal does not cause ASD. In fact, a 2004 scientific review by the IOM concluded that "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism." Since 2003, there have been nine CDC-funded or conducted studies[PDF - 357 KB] that have found no link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and ASD, as well as no link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and ASD in children. Between 1999 and 2001, thimerosal was removed or reduced to trace amounts in all childhood vaccines except for some flu vaccines. This was done as part of a broader national effort to reduce all types of mercury exposure in children before studies were conducted that determined that thimerosal was not harmful. It was done as a precaution. Currently, the only childhood vaccines that contain thimerosal are flu vaccines packaged in multi-dose vials. Thimerosal-free alternatives are also available for the flu vaccine. For more information, see the Timeline for Thimerosal in Vaccines. Besides thimerosal, some people have had concerns about other vaccine ingredients in relation to ASD as well. However, no links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and ASD.

" There is no causation or correlation between autism and childhood vaccines. Explanation: Study after study has shown there is no link between childhood vaccines and autism. As stated in the passage, "Some people have had concerns that ASD might be linked to the vaccines children receive, but studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing ASD." " OH HECK NO There is a significant risk that a child receiving certain vaccines could develop autism.

Which fact from the passage supports the hypothesis that reducing unemployment benefits would decrease unemployment? Unemployment Insurance: The Economic Argument The economic argument for unemployment insurance comes from the principle of adverse selection. One common criticism of unemployment insurance is that it induces moral hazard, or that unemployment insurance lowers on-the-job effort and reduces job-search effort. Adverse selection refers to the idea that workers who have the highest probability of becoming unemployed have the highest demand for unemployment insurance. Adverse selection causes profit-maximizing private insurance agencies to set high premiums for the insurance because there is a high likelihood they will have to make payments to the policyholder. High premiums work to exclude many individuals who otherwise might purchase the insurance. A compulsory government program avoids the adverse selection problem, which means that government provision of unemployment insurance can increase efficiency. However, government provision does not eliminate the idea of moral hazard. At the same time, those workers who manage to obtain insurance might experience more unemployment than would otherwise have been the case. The private insurance company would have to determine whether the employee is unemployed through no fault of their own, which is difficult to determine. Incorrect determinations could result in the payout of significant amounts for fraudulent claims or alternately failure to pay legitimate claims. This leads to the rationale that if government could solve either problem, its intervention would increase efficiency. In the Great Recession of late 2008, Republican legislators returned to the "moral hazard" issue of whether unemployment insurance—and specifically extending benefits past the maximum 99 weeks—significantly encourages unemployment by discouraging workers from finding and taking jobs. Conservative economist Robert Barro found that benefits raised the unemployment rate 2%. Disagreeing with Barro's study were Berkeley economist Jesse Rothstein, who found that the vast majority of unemployment was due to "demand shocks," not "[unemployment insurance]-induced supply reductions." One study by Rothstein, which examined extensions of unemployment insurance to 99 weeks during the Great Recession, found the overall effect of unemployment insurance on unemployment was to raise it by no more than one-tenth of one percent. A November 2011 report by the Congressional Budget Office found that even if unemployment benefits convince some unemployed people to ignore job openings, these openings are quickly filled by new entrants into the labor market. A survey of studies on unemployment insurance's effect on employment by the Political Economy Research Institute found that unemployed people who collected benefits did not find themselves out of work longer than those without benefits, and that unemployed workers did not search for work more or reduce their wage expectations once their benefits ran out.

". . . unemployed people who collected benefits did not find themselves out of work longer than those without benefits . . ." Explanation: According to the passage, Robert Barro's research was used to support Republican legislators' ideas that unemployment benefits increase unemployment rates. Though this was refuted by later research, it would help support this hypothesis in theory. The first answer choice refutes this. The remaining answer choices are unrelated to this issue.

What was the approximate average of the NRA campaign contributions to Republican Senators in the 2015 to 2016 time period?

$5,961 Explanation: The mean average of NRA campaign contributions to Republican Senators is about $5,961 . This is calculated by dividing the total campaign contributions to Republican Senators, $137,100 by the total number of Senators listed in the table which is 23. mean = total contributions /number of senators mean= $137,10023 /23 mean ≈ $5,960.86 mean ≈ $5,961

Read the following statements about the author's claims about citizens and their government: I. The author believes citizens should empower the government. II. The author believes the government should benefit its citizens. III. The author believes citizens need a government. IV. The author believes citizens should make informed decisions about their government. Which of the given statements are true? Excerpt from The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, 1787 Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government. It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were much opposed to it formerly, are at present of the number. Whatever may be the arguments or inducements which have wrought this change in the sentiments and declarations of these gentlemen, it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy.

All statements are true. Explanation: The author argues that citizens give power to the government in order to benefit from it and should learn more about a significant issue in order to make a decision about the necessary entity. As stated in the passage, "Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government."

The passage states that the majority of independent agencies are actually part of the executive branch; they are considered independent primarily because they are not led by a cabinet member. How does this provide independence? US Federal Agencies The executive branch of the federal government includes the Executive Office of the President and the United States federal executive departments (whose secretaries belong to the Cabinet). Employees of the majority of these agencies are considered civil servants. The majority of the independent agencies of the United States government are also classified as executive agencies (they are independent in that they are not subordinated under a Cabinet position). There are a small number of independent agencies that are not considered part of the executive branch, such as the Library of Congress and Congressional Budget Office, which are administered directly by Congress and thus are legislative branch agencies.

Cabinet members are chosen and can be fired by the president. Explanation: Cabinet officials are chosen by the president (and confirmed by the Senate), and the president may ask for their resignation at will. As a result, the president wields considerably more influence over the departments led by his cabinet officials than those which are not. Most of the independent agencies within the executive branch are administrated by a board or group as opposed to a single individual. Additionally, many of these positions come with longer tenures than a presidential term, and terms are often staggered. All of these factors provide layers of insulation, protecting the leaders of these agencies from direct political pressure by the president.

Resources and capabilities lead to distinctive competencies, which leads to cost advantage. Explanation

Explanation: Distinctive competencies refer to an entity's ability to perform some aspect of production with greater efficiency, quality, or innovation than another, thus making it more competitive. A business with preexisting capabilities and ample resources has the potential to develop distinctive competencies, which, in turn, would give that business a cost advantage—the ability to produce a good or service more cheaply and efficiently than the competition.

Human Changes to the Environment An environment is the surroundings and conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives. It is a combination of all the physical, chemical, and biological factors acting upon the area in which an organism lives. Human activities have had a significant impact on the environment. Urbanization, deforestation, and agricultural practices have greatly changed the Earth and have had effects on both the abiotic (non-living parts of an ecosystem)and biotic (living parts of an ecosystem) parts of the environment. Either as a direct result of human activities, or as a secondary effect of human actions, air pollution, water pollution, and soil pollution are all areas in which human actions and activities have had a lasting negative impact on the environment.

Explanation: Humans have changed the environment through air, water, and soil pollution. As stated in the passage, "Either as a direct result of human activities, or as a secondary effect of human actions, air pollution, water pollution, and soil pollution are all areas in which human actions and activities have had a lasting negative impact on the environment."

What was President Andrew Johnson's view on suffrage for blacks? Presidential Reconstruction Ascending to the presidency following the assassination of President Lincoln, Andrew Johnson adopted a very moderate approach toward Reconstruction. Johnson believed the former Confederate States should determine their own course of action with respect to re-establishing their governments and moving towards re-entry into the Union. Johnson felt freed black slaves were incapable of managing their own lives. He did not believe they deserved the right to vote and he espoused the idea of freed blacks emigrating to their own colony. Johnson's approach to Reconstruction was extremely lenient. He pardoned most of the Confederate leaders. He returned the property of former Confederates who pledged loyalty to the Union provided they agreed to abide by the Thirteenth Amendment. Under the Presidential phase of Reconstruction, many former Confederate leaders returned to power. Whites in the South looked to subjugate former slaves by enacting discriminatory laws known as the Black Codes. The Black Codes in some States required freed slaves to provide written evidence of employment or they would be forced to return to work on the plantations. In many states, blacks were not allowed to own guns, hunt or fish. They were also banned from public facilities, parks, and schools. The Freedman's Bureau was a federal agency established to help former slaves transition from slavery to freedom. The Black Codes thwarted this agency's efforts and resulted in the majority of freed slaves returning to work the fields to survive. Johnson's policies resulted in a backlash from the Radical Republicans of the North. The Radical Republicans believed that the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution should be granted to all men, regardless of race, creed, or color.

He did not feel that black men deserved the right to vote. Explanation: As the passage states, "He [Johnson] did not believe they deserved the right to vote and he espoused the idea of freed blacks emigrating to their own colony."

What can be inferred from Nazi Germany's reaction to Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement following the annexation of Austria? The United Kingdom and Appeasement Vivid memories of the horrors and deaths of the World War made Britain and its leaders strongly inclined to pacifism in the interwar era, exemplified by their policy of appeasement toward Nazi Germany, which led to the German annexation of Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia. World War I was won by Britain and its allies at a terrible human and financial cost, creating a sentiment that wars should be avoided at all costs. The League of Nations was founded with the idea that nations could resolve their differences peacefully. As with many in Europe who had witnessed the horrors of the First World War and its aftermath, United Kingdom Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was committed to peace. The theory was that dictatorships arose where peoples had grievances, and that by removing the source of these grievances, the dictatorship would become less aggressive. His attempts to deal with Nazi Germany through diplomatic channels and quell any sign of dissent from within, particularly from Churchill, were called by Chamberlain "the general policy of appeasement." Chamberlain's policy of appeasement emerged from the failures of the League of Nations and of collective security. The League of Nations was set up in the aftermath of World War I in the hope that international cooperation and collective resistance to aggression might prevent another war. Members of the League were entitled to assist other members if they came under attack. The policy of collective security ran in parallel with measures to achieve international disarmament and where possible was based on economic sanctions against an aggressor. It appeared ineffectual when confronted by the aggression of dictators, notably Germany's Remilitarization of the Rhineland and Italian leader Benito Mussolini 's invasion of Abyssinia. The first European crisis of Chamberlain's premiership was over the German annexation of Austria. The Nazi regime was already behind the assassination of Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss in 1934 and was now pressuring Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg. Informed of Germany's objectives, Chamberlain's government decided it was unable to stop these events and acquiesced to what later became known as the Anschluss of March 1938. Although the victorious Allies of World War I had prohibited the union of Austria and Germany, their reaction to the Anschluss was mild. Even the strongest voices against annexation, those of Fascist Italy, France, and Britain, were not backed by force. In the House of Commons Chamberlain said that "The hard fact is that nothing could have arrested what has actually happened [in Austria] unless this country and other countries had been prepared to use force." The American reaction was similar. The international reaction to the events of March 12, 1938, led Hitler to conclude that he could use even more aggressive tactics in his plan to expand the Third Reich. The Anschluss paved the way for Munich in September 1938 because it indicated the likely non-response of Britain and France to future German aggression.

Hitler and his Nazi regime were emboldened by the appeasement policy adopted by the other European nations. Explanation: The policy of appeasement and the lack of any repercussions for the annexation of Austria emboldened Hitler and the Nazis. This led to Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia and continued militarization without the fear of reprisal.

Read the following events: I. astronauts successfully orbited the moon II. Medicare amendment to the Social Security Act was approved III. Johnson died IV. Kennedy was assassinated According to the passage, which of the following is the correct order of events? Lyndon B. Johnson and the Great Society "A Great Society" for the American people and their fellow men elsewhere was the vision of Lyndon B. Johnson. In his first years of office, he obtained passage of one of the most extensive legislative programs in the nation's history. Maintaining collective security, he carried on the rapidly growing struggle to restrain communist encroachment in Vietnam. Johnson was born on August 27, 1908, in central Texas, not far from Johnson City, which his family had helped settle. He felt the pinch of rural poverty as he grew up, working his way through Southwest Texas State Teachers College (now known as Texas State University-San Marcos); he learned compassion for the poverty of others when he taught students of Mexican descent. In 1937 he campaigned successfully for the House of Representatives on a New Deal platform, effectively aided by his wife, the former Claudia "Lady Bird" Taylor, whom he had married in 1934. During World War II he served briefly in the Navy as a lieutenant commander, winning a Silver Star in the South Pacific. After six terms in the House, Johnson was elected to the Senate in 1948. In 1953, he became the youngest Minority Leader in Senate history, and the following year, when the Democrats won control, Majority Leader. With rare skill, he obtained passage of a number of key Eisenhower measures. In the 1960 campaign, Johnson, as John F. Kennedy's running mate, was elected vice president. On November 22, 1963, when Kennedy was assassinated, Johnson was sworn in as president. First, he obtained enactment of the measures President Kennedy had been urging at the time of his death--a new civil rights bill and a tax cut. Next, he urged the Nation "to build a great society, a place where the meaning of man's life matches the marvels of man's labor." In 1964, Johnson won the Presidency with 61 percent of the vote and had the widest popular margin in American history--more than 15,000,000 votes. The Great Society program became Johnson's agenda for Congress in January 1965: aid to education, attack on disease, Medicare, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, development of depressed regions, a wide-scale fight against poverty, control and prevention of crime and delinquency, removal of obstacles to the right to vote. Congress, at times augmenting or amending, rapidly enacted Johnson's recommendations. Millions of elderly people found succor through the 1965 Medicare amendment to the Social Security Act. Under Johnson, the country made spectacular explorations of space in a program he had championed since its start. When three astronauts successfully orbited the moon in December 1968, Johnson congratulated them: "You've taken ... all of us, all over the world, into a new era . . . . " Nevertheless, two overriding crises had been gaining momentum since 1965. Despite the beginning of new antipoverty and anti-discrimination programs, unrest and rioting in black ghettos troubled the nation. President Johnson steadily exerted his influence against segregation and on behalf of law and order, but there was no early solution. The other crisis arose from Vietnam. Despite Johnson's efforts to end Communist aggression and achieve a settlement, fighting continued. Controversy over the war had become acute by the end of March 1968, when he limited the bombing of North Vietnam in order to initiate negotiations. At the same time, he startled the world by withdrawing as a candidate for re-election so that he might devote his full efforts, unimpeded by politics, to the quest for peace. When he left office, peace talks were under way; he did not live to see them succeed but died suddenly of a heart attack at his Texas ranch on January 22, 1973.

IV, II, I, III Explanation: IV. Kennedy was assassinated II. Medicare amendment to the Social Security Act was approved I. astronauts successfully orbited the moon III. Johnson died According to the passage, the correct order of events is the following: Kennedy was assassinated in 1963; then the Medicare amendment to the Social Security Act was approved in 1965; then astronauts successfully orbited the moon in 1968; finally, Johnson died in 1973.

According to the passage, what was one reason that Senator Sumner's proposed language was rejected in committee? US Senate Passes the 13th Amendment In late 1863 Senator Charles Sumner became chairman of a new committee on slavery, where he hoped to consider all proposals for abolition. On February 8, 1864, he introduced his own constitutional amendment, asking that it be referred to his committee. Judiciary Committee chairman Lyman Trumbull objected, insisting instead that his committee must consider such proposals. The Senate sided with Trumbull. Sumner's radical views stirred action, but they also made enemies. "If I could cut the throats of about half a dozen senators," confessed William Pitt Fessenden of Maine, "Sumner would be the first victim." Many supporters of an abolition amendment feared that any association with Sumner could undermine success. By January of 1864, the Senate Judiciary Committee was debating and drafting the amendment. Sumner's proposal for absolute "equality before the law" was rejected. Making all persons "equal before the law," argued one senator, might lead to dangerous consequences, such as providing voting rights to women. Instead, the committee approved more modest language that echoed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States." On February 10, 1864, Trumbull reported the amendment out of committee and full Senate debate began. Fears of race-mixing and social upheaval—issues that figured prominently in the later House debate—were largely absent. Rather, senators argued over the constitutionality of uncompensated emancipation, the nature of federalism, and the propriety of adopting the first constitutional amendment in 60 years. A few radicals sought ways to empower the freedmen with civil and economic rights, but most senators agreed that abolition alone was the goal. "We give the [black man] no right except his freedom," explained Missouri Senator John Henderson. "We leave the rest to the states." On April 8, 1864, the Senate took the first crucial step towards the constitutional abolition of slavery. Before a packed gallery, a strong coalition of 30 Republicans, four border-state Democrats, and four Union Democrats joined forces to pass the amendment 38 to 6. In the months that followed, two test votes failed in the House and the amendment was sidelined by the national election. Then, in December, representatives convened a lame duck session to renew the debate. This set the stage for action in January of 1865 by the newly reelected Abraham Lincoln.

It might have provided women the right to vote Explanation: The second paragraph of the passage refers to the debate within the Senate Judiciary Committee. It notes that Sumner proposed a standard of "absolute 'equality before the law,'" but this phrasing was rejected. Such broad wording could be interpreted quite differently depending on the presiding judge or time period. The senators were aware of this, with one suggesting Sumner's proposal "might lead to dangerous consequences, such as providing voting rights to women."

Why was the Gulf of Tonkin incident so important to President Lyndon Johnson and his administration? The Gulf of Tonkin Incident In early August 1964, two US destroyers stationed in the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam radioed that they had been fired upon by North Vietnamese forces. In response to these reported incidents, President Lyndon B. Johnson requested permission from the US Congress to increase the US military presence in Indochina. On August 7, 1964, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing President Johnson to take any measures he believed were necessary to retaliate and to promote the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. This resolution became the legal basis for the Johnson and Nixon Administrations prosecution of the Vietnam War. After the end of the First Indochina War and the Viet Minh defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the countries meeting at the Geneva Conference divided Vietnam into northern and southern halves, ruled by separate regimes, and scheduled elections to reunite the country under a unified government. The communists seemed likely to win those elections, thanks mostly to their superior organization and greater appeal in the countryside. The United States, however, was dedicated to containing the spread of communist regimes and, invoking the charter of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (1954), supported the South Vietnamese leader, Ngo Dinh Diem, when he refused to hold the elections. Diem held control of the South Vietnamese Government, but he could not halt the communist infiltration of the South. By 1959, the Viet Cong, South Vietnamese communist guerillas, and the Viet Minh began a large-scale insurgency in the South that marked the opening of the Second Indochina War. By August 1964, the Johnson Administration believed that escalation of the US presence in Vietnam was the only solution. The post-Diem South proved no more stable than it had been before his ouster, and South Vietnamese troops were generally ineffective. In addition to supporting on-going South Vietnamese raids in the countryside and implementing a US program of bombing the Lao border to disrupt supply lines, the US military began backing South Vietnamese raids of the North Vietnamese coast. The US Navy stationed two destroyers, the Maddox and the Turner Joy, in the Gulf of Tonkin to bolster these actions. They reported an attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats on August 2 and a second attack on August 4. Doubts later emerged as to whether or not the attack against the Turner Joy had taken place. Immediately after reports of the second attack, Johnson asked the US Congress for permission to defend US forces in Southeast Asia. The Senate passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution with only two opposing votes, and the House of Representatives passed it unanimously. Congress supported the resolution with the assumption that the president would return and seek their support before engaging in additional escalations of the war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident and the subsequent Gulf of Tonkin Resolution provided the justification for further US escalation of the conflict in Vietnam. Acting on the belief that Hanoi would eventually weaken when faced with stepped up bombing raids, Johnson and his advisers ordered the US military to launch Operation Rolling Thunder, a bombing campaign against the North. Operation Rolling Thunder commenced on February 13, 1965, and continued through the spring of 1967. Johnson also authorized the first of many deployments of regular ground combat troops to Vietnam to fight the Viet Cong in the countryside.

It provided the White House with justification for escalating the number of US troops in Vietnam. Explanation: The alleged attack on two US Navy destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin by two North Vietnamese patrol boats gave President Johnson the justification he needed to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed through Congress. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave the president the support of Congress to increase US military troops in Southeast Asia. (Note that there was never an official declaration of war against Vietnam.)

Between 2008 to 2012, what country supplanted Spain as the primary destination of Romanian immigrants in the EU? Spain40%}34% Italy34%}46%

Italy Explanation: In 2012, 46% of Romanians emigrated to Italy, while only 34% emigrated to Spain, making Italy the most popular destination for Romanians in the EU.

Based on the passage, which of the following is NOT a cause of increased globalization? The Rise of Globalization and Economic Interdependence Recent decades have seen a trend toward globalization, which is the expanding cultural, political, and economic connections between people around the world. One measure of this is the increased buying and selling of goods, services, and assets across national borders—in other words, international trade and financial capital flows. Globalization has occurred for a number of reasons. Improvements in shipping . . . and air cargo have driven down transportation costs. Innovations in computing and telecommunications have made it easier and cheaper to manage long-distance economic connections of production and sales. Many valuable products and services in the modern economy can take the form of information—for example, computer software; financial advice; travel planning; music, books and movies; and blueprints for designing a building. These products and many others can be transported over telephones and computer networks at ever-lower costs. Finally, international agreements and treaties between countries have encouraged greater trade. In recent decades, the export/GDP ratio has generally risen, both worldwide and for the US economy. Interestingly, the share of US exports in proportion to the US economy is well below the global average, in part because large economies like the United States can contain more of the division of labor inside their national borders. However, smaller economies like Belgium, Korea, and Canada need to trade across their borders with other countries to take full advantage of division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale. In this sense, the enormous US economy is less affected by globalization than most other countries. . . . The last few decades have seen globalization evolve as a result of growth in commercial and financial networks that cross national borders, making businesses and workers from different economies increasingly interdependent.

Large economies create a surplus and only export to smaller economies. Explanation: The only answer choice not mentioned in the passage is C; all other answer choices are listed as causes of increased globalization and are, therefore, incorrect. The passage states, "Improvements in shipping . . . and air cargo have driven down transportation costs. . . . Many valuable products and services in the modern economy can take the form of information—for example, computer software; financial advice; travel planning; music, books and movies; and blueprints for designing a building. These products and many others can be transported over telephones and computer networks at ever-lower costs. Finally, international agreements and treaties between countries have encouraged greater trade."

How did George Mason impact James Madison's thinking about adding the Bill of the Rights to the Constitution? The Bill of Rights: How Did it Happen? The amendments James Madison proposed were designed to win support in both houses of Congress and the states. He focused on rights-related amendments, ignoring suggestions that would have structurally changed the government. Many Americans, persuaded by a pamphlet written by George Mason, opposed the new government. Mason was one of three delegates present on the final day of the convention who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a bill of rights. James Madison and other supporters of the Constitution argued that a bill of rights was not necessary because "the government can only exert the powers specified by the Constitution." But they agreed to consider adding amendments when ratification was in danger in the key state of Massachusetts. Few members of the First Congress wanted to make amending the new Constitution a priority. But James Madison, once the most vocal opponent of the Bill of Rights, introduced a list of amendments to the Constitution on June 8, 1789, and "hounded his colleagues relentlessly" to secure its passage. Madison had come to appreciate the importance voters attached to these protections, the role that enshrining them in the Constitution could have in educating people about their rights, and the chance that adding them might prevent its opponents from making more drastic changes to it. The House passed a joint resolution containing seventeen amendments based on Madison's proposal. The Senate changed the joint resolution to consist of twelve amendments. A joint House and Senate Conference Committee settled remaining disagreements in September. On October 2, 1789, President Washington sent copies of the twelve amendments adopted by Congress to the states. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified ten of these, now known as the "Bill of Rights."

Mason refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked the Bill of Rights, pressuring Madison to add one. Explanation: Mason refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, pressuring Madison to add one. The passage states: "Mason was one of three delegates present on the final day of the convention who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a bill of rights." Mason knew that his support was needed to pass the Constitution, and by refusing to sign the document, he signaled to Madison that he would not sign unless a Bill of Rights was created.

What is the difference between monetary policy and fiscal policy? Fiscal Policy Fiscal policy is the use of government funds, which are collected through taxation, to influence a nation's economy. In the United States, fiscal policy is determined by the President and the Congress. Many variables impact tax rates and government spending; among them are aggregate demand, the level of economic activity, the pattern of resource allocation, and the distribution of income. Fiscal policy is used by governments to influence the level of aggregate demand in the economy and to attain price stability, full employment, and robust economic growth. John Maynard Keynes developed a school of fiscal policy which posits that government spending (also known as stimulus) and low tax rates are the most effective ways to maximize aggregate economic demand; his theory calls for a decrease in spending and an increase in tax rates only after an economic boom has begun. This school of fiscal policy, also known as Keynesian economics, argues that lowering taxes and increasing government spending can be used in recessions as a way to spur economic growth, moving the economy towards higher growth rates and full employment. The resulting economic expansion would pay for any fiscal deficits (or debts) incurred by decreasing tax rates and increasing government spending. Monetary Policy Monetary policy is the process through which a government controls the supply of money. The ultimate goal of controlling the supply of money is reaching a certain interest rate to promote economic growth and stability, stable prices, and low unemployment. Monetary theory provides insight into how to make the best monetary policies. There are two types of monetary policies, expansionary or contractionary. Expansionary policies favor increasing the supply of money. Contractionary policy involves releasing less money than is normal or even taking money out of circulation. Expansionary policy is often used during times of recession by lowering interest rates, making it more appealing for people and businesses to borrow money and expand their spending. Contractionary policy attempts to slow inflation (or devaluation of a currency) to avoid market distortions and deterioration of asset values. Monetary policy is different from fiscal policy, which includes tax policies and government spending and borrowing. Monetary policy navigates the relationship between interest rates in an economy (the price at which money can be borrowed) and the total supply of money. Monetary policy controls one or both of these to influence economic growth, inflation, exchange rates with other currencies, and unemployment. Some of the tools monetary policy uses to achieve these outcomes are increasing interest rates by fiat; reducing the monetary base; increasing reserve requirements (to contract the monetary supply); and decreasing reserve requirements (to increase the monetary supply). Monetary policies can be described using the following terms: accommodative if the interest rate is meant to spur economic growth; neutral, if the policy is meant neither to create growth nor stop inflation; or tight, if it is meant to combat inflation. In most countries, central banks have the task of creating and carrying out monetary policy. Oftentimes this is done independently of the executive. The most important tool of monetary policy is open market operations. This involves controlling the amount of money in circulation through the buying and selling of various financial instruments, like treasury bills, company bonds, or foreign currencies. Buying or selling these financial instruments will result in more or less base currency entering or leaving market circulation.

Monetary policy refers to interest rate management and money circulation, while fiscal policy refers to taxing and spending actions by governments. Explanation: The difference between monetary policy and fiscal policy is that monetary policy refers to interest rate management and money circulation, while fiscal policy refers to taxing and spending actions by governments. The "Monetary Policy" passage states, "Monetary policy is the process through which a government controls the supply of money. The ultimate goal of controlling the supply of money is reaching a certain interest rate to promote economic growth and stability, stable prices, and low unemployment." The passage also states, "Monetary policy is different from fiscal policy, which includes tax policies and government spending and borrowing."

Based on the demands being made, what was one of the major concerns of those opposed to the Constitution? The Federalist Papers, No. 9 by Alexander Hamilton A distinction, more subtle than accurate, has been raised between a CONFEDERACY and a CONSOLIDATION of the States. The essential characteristic of the first is said to be, the restriction of its authority to the members in their collective capacities, without reaching to the individuals of whom they are composed. It is contended that the national council ought to have no concern with any object of internal administration. An exact equality of suffrage between the members has also been insisted upon as a leading feature of a confederate government. These positions are, in the main, arbitrary; they are supported neither by principle nor precedent. It has indeed happened, that governments of this kind have generally operated in the manner which the distinction taken notice of, supposes to be inherent in their nature; but there have been in most of them extensive exceptions to the practice, which serve to prove, as far as example will go, that there is no absolute rule on the subject. And it will be clearly shown in the course of this investigation that as far as the principle contended for has prevailed, it has been the cause of incurable disorder and imbecility in the government. The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be 'an assemblage of societies,' or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government. In the Lycian confederacy, which consisted of twenty-three CITIES or republics, the largest were entitled to THREE votes in the COMMON COUNCIL, those of the middle class to TWO, and the smallest to ONE. The COMMON COUNCIL had the appointment of all the judges and magistrates of the respective CITIES. This was certainly the most, delicate species of interference in their internal administration; for if there be any thing that seems exclusively appropriated to the local jurisdictions, it is the appointment of their own officers. Yet Montesquieu, speaking of this association, says: 'Were I to give a model of an excellent Confederate Republic, it would be that of Lycia.' Thus we perceive that the distinctions insisted upon were not within the contemplation of this enlightened civilian; and we shall be led to conclude, that they are the novel refinements of an erroneous theory.

Opponents from less populous states feared they would not have power in the House of Representatives Explanation: According to Hamilton, two of the main concerns of the Constitution's opponents were "equal suffrage between the [states]" and a complete restriction on federal interference in internal state affairs. The argument over equal suffrage primarily arose because of the large population differences between some of the states: if representation was purely proportional, the less populated states could be politically dominated. In an effort to address these concerns, the legislative power was split between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House gives more power to the more populated states, since they receive more seats. Conversely, the Senate ensures equal representation to all states, providing even the least populated state with equal authority.

Which statement best describes the perspectives of the two passages on the Women's Right to Vote movement? Women's Right to Vote - Passage 1 The 19th amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote. Achieving this milestone required a lengthy and difficult struggle; victory took decades of agitation and protest. Beginning in the mid-19th century, several generations of woman suffrage supporters lectured, wrote, marched, lobbied, and practiced civil disobedience to achieve what many Americans considered a radical change of the Constitution. Few early supporters lived to see final victory in 1920. Beginning in the 1800s, women organized, petitioned, and picketed to win the right to vote, but it took them decades to accomplish their purpose. Between 1878, when the amendment was first introduced in Congress, and August 18, 1920, when it was ratified, champions of voting rights for women worked tirelessly, but strategies for achieving their goal varied. Some pursued a strategy of passing suffrage acts in each state—nine western states adopted woman suffrage legislation by 1912. Others challenged male-only voting laws in the courts. Militant suffragists used tactics such as parades, silent vigils, and hunger strikes. Often supporters met fierce resistance. Opponents heckled, jailed, and sometimes physically abused them. By 1916, almost all of the major suffrage organizations were united behind the goal of a constitutional amendment. When New York adopted woman suffrage in 1917 and President Wilson changed his position to support an amendment in 1918, the political balance began to shift. On May 21, 1919, the House of Representatives passed the amendment, and 2 weeks later, the Senate followed. When Tennessee became the 36th state to ratify the amendment on August 18, 1920, the amendment passed its final hurdle of obtaining the agreement of three-fourths of the states. Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby certified the ratification on August 26, 1920, changing the face of the American electorate forever. Women's Suffrage - Passage 2 Following the Civil War, women activists who had helped to secure the rights of the newly freed slaves were disenchanted by their exclusion under the 15th Amendment. As a result, they vigorously resumed their campaign for equality with men politically, economically, and educationally. Gaining the right to vote was a top priority. However, many American politicians continued to oppose these efforts. The "suffragettes," as they were called, sponsored lectures, marches, publications, lobbied the government for the right to vote, and participated in parades. After WWI, and only because of the support of President Wilson, women finally won the right to vote with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920. Before the amendment went into effect, women in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Idaho previously won the right to vote in local and state elections. Indiana, however, did not grant Hoosier women the right to vote until the ratification of the 19th Amendment. Indiana was the 26th state of the 36 states required for ratification. In 1895, Hoosier Helen Gougar sued in the Tippecanoe Superior Court for damages when she was denied the right to vote by the local election board. Judge Everett found in favor of the election board, and Gougar lost again in 1897 when the Indiana Supreme Court upheld Everett's decision.

Passage 1 focuses on the Women's Right to Vote movement from a national perspective, while passage 2 focuses on the movement from the state of Indiana perspective. Explanation: Passage 1 focuses on the Women's Right to Vote movement from a national perspective, although it does mention that some suffrage groups focused on gaining the right to vote in various states. Passage 2 was more centered on the Women's Right to Vote movement from the state of Indiana perspective. It discussed Helen Gougar's attempt through the courts of Indiana to gain the right to vote as well as Indiana's role in ratifying the 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote on the national level.

What did Britain's Channel 4 News report regarding Colin Powell's testimony on Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)? Colin Powell and the Iraq War [Colin] Powell came under fire for his role in building the case for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. In a press statement on February 24, 2001, he had said that sanctions against Iraq had prevented the development of any weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein. As was the case in the days leading up to the Persian Gulf War, Powell was initially opposed to a forcible overthrow of Saddam, preferring to continue a policy of containment. However, Powell eventually agreed to go along with the Bush administration's determination to remove Saddam. He had often clashed with others in the administration, who were reportedly planning an Iraq invasion even before the September 11 attacks, an insight supported by testimony by former terrorism czar Richard Clarke in front of the 9/11 Commission. The main concession Powell wanted before he would offer his full support for the Iraq War was the involvement of the international community in the invasion, as opposed to a unilateral approach. He was also successful in persuading Bush to take the case of Iraq to the United Nations, and in moderating other initiatives. Powell was placed at the forefront of this diplomatic campaign. Powell's chief role was to garner international support for a multi-national coalition to mount the invasion. To this end, Powell addressed a plenary session of the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003, to argue in favor of military action. Citing numerous anonymous Iraqi defectors, Powell asserted that "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Powell also stated that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons. Most observers praised Powell's oratorical skills. However, Britain's Channel 4 News reported soon afterward that a UK intelligence dossier that Powell had referred to as a "fine paper" during his presentation had been based on old material and plagiarized an essay by American graduate student Ibrahim al-Marashi. A 2004 report by the Iraq Survey Group concluded that the evidence that Powell offered to support the allegation that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was inaccurate. In an interview with Charlie Rose, Powell contended that prior to his UN presentation, he had merely four days to review the data concerning WMD in Iraq. A Senate report on intelligence failures would later detail the intense debate that went on behind the scenes on what to include in Powell's speech. State Department analysts had found dozens of factual problems in drafts of the speech. Some of the claims were taken out, but others were left in, such as claims based on the yellowcake forgery. The administration came under fire for having acted on faulty intelligence, particularly what was single-sourced to the informant known as Curveball. Powell later recounted how Vice President Dick Cheney had joked with him before he gave the speech, telling him, "You've got high poll ratings; you can afford to lose a few points." Powell's longtime aide-de-camp and Chief of Staff from 1989-2003, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, later characterized Cheney's view of Powell's mission as to "go up there and sell it, and we'll have moved forward a peg or two. Fall on your damn sword and kill yourself, and I'll be happy, too." In September 2005, Powell was asked about the speech during an interview with Barbara Walters and responded that it was a "blot" on his record. He went on to say, "It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now." Wilkerson said that he inadvertently participated in a hoax on the American people in preparing Powell's erroneous testimony before the United Nations Security Council.

Powell based his recommendation on a paper that used old and plagiarized material. Explanation: According to the passage, "Britain's Channel 4 News reported soon afterward that a UK intelligence dossier that Powell had referred to as a 'fine paper' during his presentation had been based on old material and plagiarized an essay by American graduate student Ibrahim al-Marashi."

Based on the passage, what type of bank would best suit a consumer in need of mortgage or housing support? Savings and Banking Financial institutions with the primary objective of accepting savings deposits are called savings banks. In the United States, some of the chief savings bank bodies are the Savings and Loan Association, the Federal Savings Bank and the Mutual Savings Bank. In addition to savings and deposits, the Savings and Loan Association specializes in mortgages, investments, and loans. Their endeavors with mortgage and consumer loans has made them vulnerable to related economic downturns, such as the housing crisis that began in 2007. Savings and Loan Association branches spread throughout the country in the 1930's after the Great Depression and the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (FHLBA). The FHLBA was a response to the stifling hold insurance companies had on mortgage loans that left many in perpetual debt. Entities like the Savings and Loan Association had an improved loan design, where repayment and full home-ownership was foreseeable. These institutions are usually locally owned, privately managed and chartered by either the state or a federal body. In the 1970's and 1980's, there was a movement towards allowing checking and credit card accounts to be issued. Federal Savings Banks are exclusively chartered and regulated by federal law and are administered by the United States Department of the Treasury's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is its insurer. Mutual Savings Banks are chartered under central or regional governments. Depositing members of these banks own them and utilize a communal fund that pays for claims and loans. Profits are shared. This creates an opportunity for cyclic investing and saving that's secure. There are no stockholders or capital stocks. These banks withstand harsh economic changes because of their conservative investing. The first Mutual Savings Bank was opened in Boston in the 1800's. As of 2015, the longest-existing and largest branch is the Eastern Bank in Boston, launched in 1818. It has an estimated $10 billion in assets. Several other branches ended up becoming stock ownership companies. However, they've proven to be lucrative, generating more than $40 billion in assets. A common feature of all of these bank types is that their customers can accrue interest income, the longer they maintain an account.

Savings and Loan Association Explanation: As stated in the passage, "The Savings and Loan Association specializes in mortgages, investments, and loans."

Based on the passage, which of the following is true? America and the Cold War In 1945 World War II ended and much of Europe lay in ruins. More than 43 million of its countrymen were dead. Hitler's Nazi dream had been defeated, and through the waste hopes of liberty swelled. Even as German representatives signed documents of surrender, however, Europe found itself carved up among the victors. Much of Germany, half its capital city of Berlin, and most of Eastern Europe were controlled by the communist Red Army of the Soviet Union. At a wartime conference in the Crimean city of Yalta, the Allied powers of America, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union agreed to a partitioning of Germany and for free elections to be held throughout Europe following Germany's unconditional surrender. By 1946 it was becoming clear that free elections would not be held in the Soviet-controlled areas. An American Foreign Service officer serving in Moscow gave focus to those fears. He described in a telegram sent to Washington that the world was being divided into competing spheres of capitalism and communism. Capitalism was embraced by the United States and Western Europe; it is the economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private companies and individuals for profit. Communism was the economic system of the Soviet Union and most of the Eastern European countries that it occupied; it is the economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by the government, which represents all citizens. The American Foreign Service officer wrote to Washington saying that the coming battle "will decide [the] fate of capitalism and of communism in [the] entire world." The coming battle would be called the Cold War, and it would be unlike anything America had ever seen. In the Pacific, the world war had ended punctuated by twin mushroom clouds colored by ash that seconds before had been the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the zones in Europe began to shape the political and geographical boundaries of the Cold War, the radioactive plumes that swelled over the ruined Asian cities gave shape to the fears of the Cold War. In this new kind of war, begun in 1945 and lasting until 1991, the front lines would be defined less by massed armies and more by ideological arguments. Rather than generals directing their troops, agencies would send forth spies. Instead of the war's two titans meeting one another on the battlefield, substitute armies would test resolve in remote corners of the globe. The lexicon of the Cold War would be changed, and the world would learn of atoms, half-life, fall-out, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Cold War was indeed a new breed of war and would profoundly test America's spirit, leadership, and way of life.

The Cold War began at the end of the Second World War and continued until 1991. Explanation: Answer choice D describes the sequence of events contained in the passage. The passage reads: "In 1945 World War II ended and much of Europe lay in ruins . . . In this new kind of war [the Cold War], begun in 1945 and lasting until 1991, the front lines would be defined less by massed armies and more by ideological arguments." Answer choice A is a historical truth; however, it does not answer the question because neither the Korean War nor the Vietnam War is mentioned in the passage. Answer choices B and C are not mentioned in the passage.

Which of the following best describes the major difference between the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties during the Jeffersonian Era? The Jeffersonian Era and the Rise of the Democratic-Republican Party The Federalist Party was the first American political party. It existed from the early 1790s to 1816; its remnants lasted into the 1820s. The Federalists called for a strong national government that promoted economic growth and fostered friendly relationships with Great Britain, as well as opposition to revolutionary France. The party controlled the federal government until 1801, when it was overwhelmed by the Democratic-Republican opposition led by Thomas Jefferson. The Federalist Party came into being between 1792 and 1794 as a national coalition of bankers and businessmen in support of Alexander Hamilton's fiscal policies. These supporters developed into the organized Federalist Party, which was committed to a fiscally sound and nationalistic government. The only Federalist president was John Adams; although George Washington was broadly sympathetic to the Federalist program, he remained officially non-partisan during his entire presidency. Federalist policies called for a national bank, tariffs, and good relations with Great Britain as expressed in the Jay Treaty negotiated in 1794. Hamilton developed the concept of implied powers and successfully argued the adoption of that interpretation of the United States Constitution. Their political opponents, the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson, denounced most of the Federalist policies, especially the bank and implied powers, and vehemently attacked the Jay Treaty as a sell-out of republican values to the British monarchy. The Jay Treaty passed, and the Federalists won most of the major legislative battles in the 1790s. They held a strong base in the nation's cities and in New England. After the Democratic-Republicans, whose base was in the rural South, won the hard-fought election of 1800, the Federalists never returned to power. They recovered some strength by their intense opposition to the War of 1812, but they practically vanished during the Era of Good Feelings that followed the end of the war in 1815. The Democratic-Republican Party was an American political party formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791-93 to oppose the centralizing policies of the new Federalist Party run by Alexander Hamilton (1755/57-1804), who was secretary of the treasury and chief architect of George Washington's administration. The new party controlled the presidency and Congress, as well as most states, from 1801 to 1825, during the First Party System. It began in 1791 as one faction in Congress and included many politicians who had been opposed to the new constitution. They called themselves Republicans after their ideology, Republicanism. They distrusted the Federalist commitment to republicanism. The party splintered in 1824 into the Jacksonian movement (which became the Democratic Party in 1828) and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party). Jefferson denounced those subversive of republicanism. He also denounced programs that led to monarchy. Jefferson needed to have a nationwide party to challenge the Federalists, which Hamilton was building up with allies in major cities. Foreign affairs took a leading role in 1794-95 as the Republicans vigorously opposed the Jay Treaty with Britain, which was then at war with France. Republicans saw France as more democratic after its revolution, while Britain represented the hated monarchy. The party denounced many of Hamilton's measures as unconstitutional, especially the national bank. The party was strongest in the South and weakest in the Northeast. It demanded states' rights as expressed by the "Principles of 1798" articulated in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions that would allow states to nullify a federal law. Above all, the party stood for the primacy of the yeoman farmers. Republicans were deeply committed to the principles of republicanism, which they feared were threatened by the supposed monarchical tendencies of the Hamiltonian Federalists. The party came to power in 1801 with the election of Jefferson in the 1800 presidential election. The Federalists—too elitist to appeal to most people—faded away, and totally collapsed after 1815. The Republicans dominated the First Party System, despite internal divisions, until partisanship itself withered away during the Era of Good Feelings after 1816.

The Federalist Party favored a strong national government, while the Democratic-Republican Party favored states' rights. Explanation: Although the ideals of the Federalists had dominated US government since the election of the first US President, George Washington, with the election of Thomas Jefferson came a new idea and the formation of the Democratic-Republican party. The Federalists favored a strong government, ruled by one central authority. The passage states: "The Federalists called for a strong national government that promoted economic growth . . . ." The Republicans sought to limit the control of the government, favoring rule by the state, the people, the common man, or more specifically, the yeoman farmer. The passage states: "The Democratic-Republican Party was an American political party formed . . . . to oppose the centralizing policies of the new Federalist Party."

In the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, which statement best describes the position of the minority, provided by Justice John Marshall Harlan? Plessy v. Ferguson, Majority Opinion In 1891, a group of concerned young black men of New Orleans formed the "Citizens' Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law." They raised money and engaged Albion W. Tourgée, a prominent Radical Republican author, and politician, as their lawyer. On May 15, 1892, the Louisiana State Supreme Court decided in favor of the Pullman Company's claim that the law was unconstitutional as it applied to interstate travel. Encouraged, the committee decided to press a test case on intrastate travel. With the cooperation of the East Louisiana Railroad, on June 7, 1892, Homer Plessy, a mulatto (7/8white), seated himself in a white compartment, was challenged by the conductor and was arrested and charged with violating the state law. In the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Tourgée argued that the law requiring "separate but equal accommodations" was unconstitutional. When Judge John H. Ferguson ruled against him, Plessy applied to the State Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition and certiorari. Although the court upheld the state law, it granted Plessy's petition for a writ of error that would enable him to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. In 1896, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Justice Henry Brown of Michigan delivered the majority opinion, which sustained the constitutionality of Louisiana's Jim Crow law. In part, he said: "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it... The argument also assumes that social prejudice may be overcome by legislation and that equal rights cannot be secured except by an enforced commingling of the two races... If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane." Plessy v. Ferguson, Dissenting Opinion In a powerful dissent, conservation Kentuckian John Marshall Harlan wrote: "I am of the opinion that the statute of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberties of citizens, white and black, in that State, and hostile to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States. If laws of like character should be enacted in the several States of the Union, the effect would be in the highest degree mischievous. Slavery as an institution tolerated by law would, it is true, have disappeared from our country, but there would remain a power in the States, by sinister legislation, to interfere with the blessings of freedom; to regulate civil rights common to all citizens, upon the basis of race; and to place in a condition of legal inferiority a large body of American citizens, now constituting a part of the political community, called the people of the United States, for whom an by whom, through representatives, our government is administrated. Such a system is inconsistent with the guarantee given by the Constitution to each State of a republican form of government, and may be stricken down by congressional action, or by the courts in the discharge of their solemn duty to maintain the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Indeed, it was not until the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas and congressional civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s that systematic segregation under state law was ended. In the wake of those Federal actions, many states amended or rewrote their state constitutions to conform with the spirit of the 14th Amendment. But for Homer Plessy, the remedies came too late.

The Louisiana law forcing blacks to ride in separate railroad cars is an invasion of their personal and civil liberties as citizens of the United States. Explanation: The dissenting, or minority, opinion offered by Justice John Marshall Harlan, stated that the concept of separate but equal is an invasion of the black race's civil liberties. As Harlan stated, "I am of the opinion that the statute of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberties of citizens, white and black, in that State, and hostile to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States."

What is this pre-World War II Nazi propaganda poster attempting to depict? Nazi Germany Propaganda Poster (pretty happy German family) The Nazi Party Safeguards the People of the Nation National comrades, if you need advice and help, then turn to your local Nazi Party

The Nazi party is there to comfort and protect German families. Explanation: The poster depicts the Nazi Party as providing protection and support for the German family. The title of the poster is "The Nazi Party Safeguards the People of the Nation" and the text below states that "National comrades, if you need advice and help, then turn to your local Nazi Party."

Which of the following statements was NOT a reason given by the US District Court Judges for blocking the Trump immigration ban? Trump's Third Travel Ban is Blocked - Passage 1 President Donald Trump struck out again with his third try at a travel ban, as a federal judge temporarily blocked it from taking effect nationwide on Wednesday. This time, Trump's order was found to discriminate by using the nationality of travelers "as a proxy" for their security risk. In earlier rulings over two prior attempts at a travel ban, judges said they were motivated by bias against Muslims, Bloomberg reported. The administration vowed to keep fighting, and the case could again reach the US Supreme Court, which has so far appeared more receptive than lower-court judges to Trump's efforts to curtail immigration. The raging battle, now in its ninth month, has spurred a constitutional confrontation that could define powers of the presidency for years to come. Trump hasn't shown that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specified countries would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States," US District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu said in issuing a temporary restraining order against the administration. Federal immigration laws "do not afford the President unbridled discretion to do as he pleases," the judge said. Source: https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2017/10/18/1549217/federal-judge-blocks-trump-s-third-travel-ban Trump's Third Travel Ban is Blocked - Passage 2 On Tuesday and Wednesday, United States District Judges in two states issued rulings barring enforcement of part or all of the latest version of President Donald Trump's executive order forbidding people from specific countries from entering the United States. On Tuesday, in Hawaii, District Judge Derrick Watson issued a temporary block on enforcement. On Wednesday, in Maryland, District Judge Theodore D. Chuang blocked one of its stipulations on the grounds that it was an "inextricable re-animation of the twice-enjoined Muslim ban." The order was to have gone into effect Wednesday night and would have affected people from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Chad, and some Venezuelans. Watson, who previously ruled on another version of the order, ruled that the current ban "plainly discriminates based on nationality," "lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specified countries would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'" and "suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor." Chuang blocked the order's measure pertaining to anyone with a bona fide relationship to someone in the United States. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told the press, "The Department of Justice will vigorously defend the president's lawful action[...] These restrictions are vital to ensuring that foreign nations comply with the minimum security standards required for the integrity of our immigration system and the security of our nation."

The ban violates the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution. Explanation: Answer choices A, B, and C are cited in one of the two passages as reasons why the US District Court Judges blocked the immigration ban. There is no mention of the due process clauses in the US Constitution by either passage as being a reason for blocking the ban.

How does the passage address one critique of the individual choice to make trade-offs? How Individuals Do the Best They Can, and How They Resolve the Trade-off between Earnings and Free Time Decision making under scarcity is a common problem because we usually have limited means available to meet our objectives. Economists model these situations, first by defining all of the feasible actions, then evaluating which of these actions is best, given the objectives. Opportunity costs describe the unavoidable trade-offs in the presence of scarcity: satisfying one objective more means satisfying other objectives less. A model of decision making under scarcity can be applied to the question of how much time to spend working, when facing a trade-off between more free time and more income. This model also helps to explain differences in the hours that people work in different countries, and the changes in our hours of work throughout history. . . . The idea of suddenly receiving a six-fold increase in your hourly wage and being able to choose your own hours of work might not seem very realistic. But we know that technological progress since the Industrial Revolution has been accompanied by a dramatic rise in wages. In fact, the average real hourly earnings of American workers did increase more than six-fold during the twentieth century. And while employees ordinarily cannot just tell their employer how many hours they want to work, over long time periods the typical hours that we work do change. In part, this is a response to how much we prefer to work. As individuals, we can choose part-time work, although this may restrict our job options. Political parties also respond to the preferences of voters, so changes in typical working hours have occurred in many countries as a result of legislation that imposes maximum working hours.

The passage states that the typical hours we work do change over time based on employee preference and political intervention. Explanation: Answer choice A is a critique, not a response to the question. The passage does not state either answer choices C or D, but it does state that "while employees ordinarily cannot just tell their employer how many hours they want to work, over long time periods the typical hours that we work do change. In part, this is a response to how much we prefer to work. As individuals, we can choose part-time work."

In the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, which statement best describes the position of the majority, provided by Justice Henry Brown? Plessy v. Ferguson, Majority Opinion In 1891, a group of concerned young black men of New Orleans formed the "Citizens' Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law." They raised money and engaged Albion W. Tourgée, a prominent Radical Republican author, and politician, as their lawyer. On May 15, 1892, the Louisiana State Supreme Court decided in favor of the Pullman Company's claim that the law was unconstitutional as it applied to interstate travel. Encouraged, the committee decided to press a test case on intrastate travel. With the cooperation of the East Louisiana Railroad, on June 7, 1892, Homer Plessy, a mulatto (7/8white), seated himself in a white compartment, was challenged by the conductor and was arrested and charged with violating the state law. In the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Tourgée argued that the law requiring "separate but equal accommodations" was unconstitutional. When Judge John H. Ferguson ruled against him, Plessy applied to the State Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition and certiorari. Although the court upheld the state law, it granted Plessy's petition for a writ of error that would enable him to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. In 1896, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Justice Henry Brown of Michigan delivered the majority opinion, which sustained the constitutionality of Louisiana's Jim Crow law. In part, he said: "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it... The argument also assumes that social prejudice may be overcome by legislation and that equal rights cannot be secured except by an enforced commingling of the two races... If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane." Plessy v. Ferguson, Dissenting Opinion In a powerful dissent, conservation Kentuckian John Marshall Harlan wrote: "I am of the opinion that the statute of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberties of citizens, white and black, in that State, and hostile to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States. If laws of like character should be enacted in the several States of the Union, the effect would be in the highest degree mischievous. Slavery as an institution tolerated by law would, it is true, have disappeared from our country, but there would remain a power in the States, by sinister legislation, to interfere with the blessings of freedom; to regulate civil rights common to all citizens, upon the basis of race; and to place in a condition of legal inferiority a large body of American citizens, now constituting a part of the political community, called the people of the United States, for whom an by whom, through representatives, our government is administrated. Such a system is inconsistent with the guarantee given by the Constitution to each State of a republican form of government, and may be stricken down by congressional action, or by the courts in the discharge of their solemn duty to maintain the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Indeed, it was not until the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas and congressional civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s that systematic segregation under state law was ended. In the wake of those Federal actions, many states amended or rewrote their state constitutions to conform with the spirit of the 14th Amendment. But for Homer Plessy, the remedies came too late.

The policy of separate but equal is a societal question and therefore not within the jurisdiction of US Constitution. Explanation: Justice Henry Brown's majority opinion states that "If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane." Brown is saying that under the law, politically and civilly, all races are equal, and if they are not equal socially that is not an issue the court can remedy.

Based on the passage, which statement best summarizes NASA's research on global warming? Global Climate Change The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20thcentury and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia. Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate. The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth's climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

There is plenty of empirical data that shows that global warming is real. Explanation: The passage cites many examples that indicate global warming is a real phenomenon and is likely the result of human activity, like the burning of fossil fuels. As stated in the passage, "Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate." The passage further states that "Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth's climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."

If President Lincoln had already issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which of the following was most likely the reason that individuals like Senators Sumner and Henderson sought a constitutional amendment? US Senate Passes the 13th Amendment In late 1863 Senator Charles Sumner became chairman of a new committee on slavery, where he hoped to consider all proposals for abolition. On February 8, 1864, he introduced his own constitutional amendment, asking that it be referred to his committee. Judiciary Committee chairman Lyman Trumbull objected, insisting instead that his committee must consider such proposals. The Senate sided with Trumbull. Sumner's radical views stirred action, but they also made enemies. "If I could cut the throats of about half a dozen senators," confessed William Pitt Fessenden of Maine, "Sumner would be the first victim." Many supporters of an abolition amendment feared that any association with Sumner could undermine success. By January of 1864, the Senate Judiciary Committee was debating and drafting the amendment. Sumner's proposal for absolute "equality before the law" was rejected. Making all persons "equal before the law," argued one senator, might lead to dangerous consequences, such as providing voting rights to women. Instead, the committee approved more modest language that echoed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States." On February 10, 1864, Trumbull reported the amendment out of committee and full Senate debate began. Fears of race-mixing and social upheaval—issues that figured prominently in the later House debate—were largely absent. Rather, senators argued over the constitutionality of uncompensated emancipation, the nature of federalism, and the propriety of adopting the first constitutional amendment in 60 years. A few radicals sought ways to empower the freedmen with civil and economic rights, but most senators agreed that abolition alone was the goal. "We give the [black man] no right except his freedom," explained Missouri Senator John Henderson. "We leave the rest to the states." On April 8, 1864, the Senate took the first crucial step towards the constitutional abolition of slavery. Before a packed gallery, a strong coalition of 30 Republicans, four border-state Democrats, and four Union Democrats joined forces to pass the amendment 38 to 6. In the months that followed, two test votes failed in the House and the amendment was sidelined by the national election. Then, in December, representatives convened a lame duck session to renew the debate. This set the stage for action in January of 1865 by the newly reelected Abraham Lincoln.

They wanted to ensure slavery would not return with a change of administration, judicial ruling, or a change in majority. Explanation: The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order, which meant any subsequent administration could issue an order to override its effects. Additionally, many people at the time argued that the decree might be beyond the president's authority and, therefore, unconstitutional. Congress may have chosen to pass regular legislation with the same effect as the executive order, but it would be subject to judicial review and could be reversed by a simple majority of any subsequent Congress. Only a constitutional amendment offered significant protection against the return of slavery.

How did Germany become divided? The Division of Germany and The Berlin Blockade/Airlift At the Potsdam Conference in 1945, US President Harry S. Truman congregated with Soviet Union General Secretary Joseph Stalin and the United Kingdom's Prime Minister Winston Churchill to discuss how the recently defeated Nazi Germany would be administered after World War II. It was decided that Germany would be split into four military occupation zones. Each of their respective countries would have sovereign authority in a designated area. The intent of the division was to remove Nazi influence, increase economic accord and create a functioning network. This wasn't completely achieved, as tensions between parties surrounding reparations, industrial needs and political structure mounted. Around 1947, the geopolitical conflicts brewed into the Cold War, with the Soviet Union and the United States profoundly at odds. From June of 1948 to May of 1949, the Soviet Union prevented the United States and other western allies from accessing railways, roads and canals that lead to sectors of Berlin. To drop the blockade, they demanded that the western allies remove the new Deutsche Mark currency from West Berlin. Refusing to concede, the western allies launched the Berlin Airlift to deliver supplies, such as fuel and food, to West Berlin's large population. Participating aircrews included the United States Air Force, the British Royal Air Force, the French Air Force, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Australian Air Force, the Royal New Zealand Air Force, and the South African Air Force. Together, the crews transported about 8,893 tons of product each day over an estimated 200,000 flights. The effort was so successful, more goods were distributed by the airlift than when the railways were being used. The Deutsche Mark currency was initiated in an attempt to reform the economic system in Germany. The previous Reichsmark currency had been debased by excessive printing. The circulation was so immoderate, that citizens began using cigarettes for currency and bartering. The Soviet Union opposed the implementation of Deutsche Mark for a number of reasons. As their ideologies regarding Germany developed, they felt it was best to keep the country docile in a recession. They also felt they should be the ones responsible for issuing legal tender in the land. When the western allies moved forward with their plans, the Soviet Union cited that the decision wasn't justified and was unilateral. Their multiple tries at curtailing the airlift proved to be futile. After incurring negative economic and relational effects, the Soviet Union agreed to end the blockade and enter renegotiations with the western allies.

World leaders divided the country into military zones. Explanation: The passage states that "United States President Harry S. Truman congregated with Soviet Union General Secretary Joseph Stalin and the United Kingdom's Prime Minister Winston Churchill to discuss how the recently defeated Nazi Germany would be administered after World War II. It was decided that Germany would be split into four military occupation zones."

In the Treaty of Versailles what was the "War Guilt" clause? Treaty of Versailles The Treaty of Versailles was the most important of the peace treaties that brought World War I to an end. It was signed on June 28, 1919, exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The other Central Powers on the German side of World War I signed separate treaties. Although the armistice signed on November 11, 1918, ended the actual fighting, it took six months of Allied negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference to conclude the peace treaty. The treaty was registered by the Secretariat of the League of Nations on October 21, 1919. Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required "Germany accept the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage" during the war (the other members of the Central Powers signed treaties containing similar articles). This article, Article 231, later became known as the War Guilt clause. The treaty forced Germany to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. In 1921 the total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion marks (then $31.4 billion, roughly equivalent to USD $442 billion in 2017). At the time economists, notably, John Maynard Keynes, predicted that the treaty was too harsh—a "Carthaginian peace"—and said the reparations figure was excessive and counter-productive, views that have since been the subject of ongoing debate by historians and economists from several countries. On the other hand, prominent figures on the Allied side such as French Marshal Ferdinand Foch criticized the treaty for treating Germany too leniently. The result of these competing and sometimes conflicting goals among the victors was a compromise that left no one content: Germany was neither pacified nor conciliated, nor was it permanently weakened. The problems that arose from the treaty would lead to the Locarno Treaties, which improved relations between Germany and the other European Powers, and the renegotiation of the reparation system resulting in the Dawes Plan, the Young Plan, and the indefinite postponement of reparations at the Lausanne Conference of 1932.

a provision in the treaty that required Germany to accept responsibility for causing all loss and damage during the war Explanation: The "War Guilt" clause in the Treaty of Versailles required Germany to accept responsibility for causing all loss and damage from the war. As stated in the passage, "Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required 'Germany accept the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage' during the war (the other members of the Central Powers signed treaties containing similar articles). This article, Article 231, later became known as the War Guilt clause."

According to the passage, what is the best definition of a market? Markets Although command economies have a very centralized structure for economic decisions, market economies have a very decentralized structure. A market is an institution that brings together buyers and sellers of goods or services, who may be either individuals or businesses. The New York Stock Exchange is a prime example of a market in which buyers and sellers are brought together. In a market economy, decision-making is decentralized. Market economies are based on private enterprise: the means of production (resources and businesses) are owned and operated by private individuals or groups of private individuals. Businesses supply goods and services based on demand. (In a command economy, by contrast, resources and businesses are owned by the government.) What goods and services are supplied depends on what is demanded. A person's income is based on his or her ability to convert resources (especially labor) into something that society values. The more society values the person's output, the higher the income (think Lady Gaga or LeBron James). In this scenario, economic decisions are determined by market forces, not governments. Most economies in the real world are mixed; they combine elements of command and market (and even traditional) systems. The U.S. economy is positioned toward the market-oriented end of the spectrum. Many countries in Europe and Latin America, while primarily market-oriented, have a greater degree of government involvement in economic decisions than does the U.S. economy. China and Russia, while they are closer to having a market-oriented system now than several decades ago, remain closer to the command economy end of the spectrum.

an institution that brings together buyers and sellers of goods or services Explanation: The answer is found in the following excerpt, "A market is an institution that brings together buyers and sellers of goods or services, who may be either individuals or businesses." Of the other answer choices, answer choices A and B refer to command economies, and answer choice D refers to a mixed economy.

"My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration . . . I have favored it because I supposed it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice." Considering the historical context of this letter, which was written shortly after the Revolutionary War, why would Madison favor the creation of a Bill of Rights? An Excerpt of a Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson - October 17, 1788 . . . The little pamphlet herewith enclosed will give you a collective view of the alterations which have been proposed for the new Constitution. Various and numerous as they appear they certainly omit many of the true grounds of opposition. The articles relating to Treaties, to paper money, and to contracts, created more enemies than all the errors in the System positive & negative put together. It is true nevertheless that not a few, particularly in Virginia have contended for the proposed alterations from the most honorable & patriotic motives; and that among the advocates for the Constitution, there are some who wish for further guards to public liberty & individual rights. As far as these may consist of a constitutional declaration of the most essential rights, it is probable they will be added; though there are many who think such addition unnecessary, and not a few who think it misplaced in such a Constitution. There is scarce any point on which the party in opposition is so much divided as to its importance and its propriety. My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time, I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. I have favored it because I supposed it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice . . ."

because the English monarchy had violated colonists' rights and he wanted to ensure this didn't happen again Explanation: The letter was written shortly after the Revolutionary War. The colonists fought the Revolutionary War because the English monarchy had violated their rights. Considering these facts, it can be inferred that Madison favored the creation of a Bill of Rights because the English monarchy had violated colonists' rights and because he wanted to ensure this didn't happen again.

How would a railroad monopoly influence the other industries mentioned in the cartoon?

by setting the price of transporting goods and workers, which all the other industries rely upon Explanation: The railroad represented the only way to move large quantities of goods and people overland in California, meaning that every other industry relied on them for shipping in some way. Even the maritime shipping industry needed the railroads to bring goods and people from the interior to the coast, and vice versa.

According to Wilentz, what was the most likely reason that the House of Representatives pursued impeachment charges, rather than resulting to the alternatives he listed? Sean Wilentz - House Judiciary Committee Testimony in the Impeachment of President Clinton Amid these proceedings, various Committee Members . . . have spoken about the need to preserve, protect and defend the American rule of law. No one who has heard those remarks can fail to be alarmed by the vision of a breakdown of the nation's fundamental legal framework, a vision exemplified by the knock at the door at 3 a.m. But the question before us is this: which represents the greater threat to the rule of law, the impeachment of President Clinton or the refusal to impeach him? Those who support impeachment naturally think that the latter, refusing to impeach, is the greater threat. Allow a President to get away with suspected perjury and obstruction of justice, and, supposedly, Congress will countenance an irreparable tear in the seamless web of American justice. Impeach the President and, supposedly, the rule of law will be vindicated, if only in a symbolic way, proving forcefully that no American, not even the president, is above the law, and that the ladder of the law has no top and no bottom. Yet this argument is nonsense, logically and historically. As virtually every commentator before you has noted, American impeachment procedures have never been designed to try and to punish officeholders for criminal behavior. That is what trials before our courts are for—local, state, and federal . . . For his alleged crimes and misdemeanors, President Clinton remains highly vulnerable to any number of legal actions. He could be tried by a jury of his peers in a court of law once he leaves office. He could be sanctioned by Judge Susan Weber Wright if she holds that he gave false and misleading evidence in his deposition in the Paula Jones case. He could be disbarred. In short, he is decidedly not above the law . . . But there is something even more dangerous afoot, and it has to do with the increasingly cavalier attitude surrounding this impeachment here in Washington, and especially in the House of Representatives. To say that impeachment doesn't really matter because the Senate will acquit President Clinton is to take a frighteningly myopic view of the costs involved for the nation in pressing forward with a Senate trial. Even if the Senate does acquit, the trial will inspire widespread revulsion at Congress, for extending a nauseating process that the voters have repeatedly instructed Congress should cease. More important, it will increase public cynicism about the rule of law by raising serious questions about how easily prosecutors can manipulate criminal charges and judicial proceedings for partisan ends . . . You may decide, as a body, to go through with impeachment, disregarding the letter as well as the spirit of the Constitution, defying the deliberate judgment of the people whom you are supposed to represent and, in some cases, deciding to do so out of anger and expedience. But if you decide to do this, you will have done far more to subvert respect for the framers of the Constitution, for representative government, and for the rule of law than any crime that has been alleged against President Clinton. And your reputations will be darkened for as long as there are Americans who can tell the difference between the rule of law and the rule of politics.

for political advantage Explanation: Wilentz believed that partisan politics were the primary motivation for the impeachment of President Clinton. President Clinton was a Democrat, and the 1998 House of Representatives was controlled by a Republican majority. There were numerous other legal means to prosecute President Clinton for his infractions, but the House insisted on impeachment proceedings. This decision was particularly questionable since the general assumption was "the Senate [would] acquit President Clinton." As Wilentz notes, to proceed with impeachment while assuming the Senate would acquit "is to take a frighteningly myopic view of the costs involved for the nation in pressing forward with a Senate trial." He went on to state that "it will increase the public cynicism about the rule of law by raising serious questions about how easily prosecutors can manipulate criminal charges and judicial proceedings for partisan ends."

If the Speaker of the House of Representatives assumes the presidency, how many voters will have had direct say in the president? Presidential Line of Succession 1. Vice President 2. Speaker of the House of Representatives 3. President pro tempore of the Senate 4. Secretary of State 5. Secretary of the Treasury 6. Secretary of Defense 7. Attorney General 8. Secretary of the Interior 9. Secretary of Agriculture 10. Secretary of Commerce 11. Secretary of Labor 12. Secretary of Health and Human Services 13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 14. Secretary of Transportation 15. Secretary of Energy 16. Secretary of Education 17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs 18. Secretary of Homeland Security

one district of voters; House members are elected in congressional districts Explanation: Members of the House of Representatives are directly elected by specific districts within a given state. The speaker of the house is then chosen by vote within the House of Representatives (an indirect election). On August 9, 1974, something similar happened when President Gerald Ford was sworn into office, assuming the role after President Nixon resigned. Ford, interestingly, had not been elected vice president: he instead received 118,027 votes in Michigan's 5th Congressional District, retaining his seat and winning reelection as speaker of the house. After Vice President Agnew resigned, Speaker Ford was chosen (again by the House) to succeed him as the vice president.

"Progress meant new products, such as Cracker Jacks, Pabst Beer, and Juicy Fruit gum. Progress meant new landscape architecture, exemplified at the fair with lagoons and paths designed by Frederick Law Olmstead. Progress meant new technology, featured in exhibits of George Westinghouse's alternating-current generators and Thomas Edison's moving-picture kinetograph. Progress meant sculptures on a grand scale, such as Daniel Chester French's "The Republic" that stood as a monument to democratic ideology." Based on the excerpt, which of the following is NOT highlighted as a byproduct of progress? The Chicago Exhibition, 1893 In 1893, 28 million people—about one-third of the American population—visited the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago. Beyond the exhibits, visitors witnessed an array of constitutional rights. In particular, they saw the First Amendment in action. Citizens petitioned the fair's managers. Citizens assembled peaceably. Citizens exercised freedom of speech and religion. The subjects of the petitions, assemblies, and speeches foreshadowed 20th-century debates over social issues, including religion, gender, and race. Chicago itself testified to rapid urban growth and the ability to rebuild after the devastation of the Great Fire. Now the population totaled about 1,550,000, with one-third foreign-born. The city was celebrating 400 years of "progress" since Christopher Columbus's discovery of America and anticipating a new century of greater progress. Progress meant new products, such as Cracker Jacks, Pabst Beer, and Juicy Fruit gum. Progress meant new landscape architecture, exemplified at the fair with lagoons and paths designed by Frederick Law Olmstead. Progress meant new technology, featured in exhibits of George Westinghouse's alternating-current generators and Thomas Edison's moving-picture kinetograph. Progress meant sculptures on a grand scale, such as Daniel Chester French's "The Republic" that stood as a monument to democratic ideology. Within the walls of the beaux-arts-style architectural structures, the World Congress Auxiliary, one of the groups that helped organize the fair, offered a vast program of public events. Protected by the First Amendment, speakers lectured on women's progress, medicine, temperance, social reform, education, engineering, government, philosophy, Sunday rest, agriculture, and real estate. The issues divided the audience. So did the schedule for the sessions. In scheduling the events at the fair, the managers touched off a volatile debate. Should the fair open on Sundays? The Fair managers waffled. Among other things, their debate revealed growing social and economic tensions between classes. Established social mores echoed Puritan blue laws: no businesses opened on Sundays. At one point, opponents of Sunday openings persuaded Congress to pass a resolution prohibiting funding for Sunday openings. In response, supporters of Sunday openings resorted to an exercise of First Amendment rights. They petitioned Congress, and the name "Thomas Edison" dominated the list of signatures attached to a "Petition to Congress to Repeal the Act Closing the World's Columbian Exposition on Sundays." Sunday openings, they argued in a petition subtitled "Religious Toleration is Christian Civilization," would open a world of education, art, and appreciation. Thus their petition cited another right within the First: the freedom of religion. The petition summarized a larger debate: How would the country deal with workers who depended on the industry for 6-day-a-week jobs, not on personal relationships with employers? The working class, central to industrialization, could visit the fair only on Sundays. Fair managers first closed, then opened, then closed on Sundays. Speakers at the Women's Building found themselves at the center of other controversies. Some feared the authorization and building of the "Women's" Building as recognition of new roles for women. To manage the fair, Congress had created an all-male commission. In turn, Congress, after hearing from determined American women, permitted the commission to appoint a Board of Lady Managers. The board's chair, Bertha Honore Palmer (Mrs. Potter Palmer), found the Lady Managers both praised and condemned. Supporters praised them for envisioning a Woman's Building, filled with works created by women; opponents criticized them for separating women's works from men's. Ultimately they built the Woman's Building following architect Sophia Hayden's plan and filled it with exhibits from American, European, and Latin American women. Bertha Palmer recognized the use of federal dollars in her dedicatory speech: "Even more important that the discovery of Columbus is the fact that the general [federal] government has just discovered women." The conflicts between the Lady Managers and the all-male commissioners reflected the late 19th-century debates over women's roles and contributed to the growth of the suffrage movement and, in 1919, to the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. The Board of Lady Managers included no black Americans. At first, the fair planned no role for black Americans. In protest, Mrs. Ida B. Wells distributed her pamphlet, "The Reason Why the Colored American is not Represented in the World's Columbian Exhibition." Ida Wells, a native of Holly Springs, Mississippi, who led an anti-lynching crusade in the South before moving to New York, asked: "Those visitors to the World's Colombian Exposition . . . especially foreigners will naturally ask . . . Why are not the colored people who constitute so large an element of the American population, and who have contributed so large a share to American greatness, more visibly present and better represented in this World's Exposition? Why are they not taking part in this glorious celebration of the four-hundredth anniversary of the discovery of their country?" With Frederick Douglass as the co-author of her pamphlet, Wells addressed the controversy of African American representation at the fair. They won a role. Separate from the Lady Managers, black women formed the Women's Columbian Auxiliary Association, following a pattern of creating "auxiliary" associations common in the United States. As Chauncey Depew suggested in an interview with the New York Times on June 19, 1893, the fair was "the world in miniature." Amid all the hoopla and the new products, class, racial, and gender conflicts permeated the fair just as they were permeating American society at large.

racial equality Explanation: Advances towards racial equality are not cited in this excerpt about progress. This excerpt does mention technological advances, newly processed foods, and large-scale art in the form of sculpture, highlighting these as byproducts of progress. The passage states that "Progress meant new products, such as Cracker Jacks, Pabst Beer, and Juicy Fruit gum. Progress meant new landscape architecture, exemplified at the fair with lagoons and paths designed by Frederick Law Olmstead. Progress meant new technology, featured in exhibits of George Westinghouse's alternating-current generators and Thomas Edison's moving-picture kinetograph. Progress meant sculptures on a grand scale, such as Daniel Chester French's 'The Republic' that stood as a monument to democratic ideology." While the fair eventually allowed a role for black Americans, it did not at first consider this, which demonstrates that at this time racial equality was not considered an effect or byproduct of progress.

According to the passage, which of the following activities does a special interest group NOT participate in? Special Interest Groups: the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association (NRA) A special interest group is an organization that pursues the interests of a certain group of people in the public sphere. The group typically has a membership and provides benefits to its members. Working to elect officials whose beliefs align with those of the interest group, lobbying officials already in office by encouraging them to support legislation that would benefit the members of the interest group, and filing lawsuits on behalf of the members of the interest group are the tactics that interest groups use to bring about the change they wish to see in the world. One example of an interest group is the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club's mission is to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's resources, to educate and encourage people to protect and restore the quality of the environment, and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives. One of the projects of the Sierra Club is supporting a movement away from the use of coal to generate electricity. The Sierra Club sponsors the Beyond Coal Campaign, which mobilizes grassroots activists in communities to advocate for the retirement of old and outdated coal plants and to prevent new coal plants from being built. The Sierra Club's goals are to retire one-third of the nation's more than 500 coal plants by 2020; to replace the majority of retired coal plants with plants powered by renewable energies like wind, solar, and hydro power; and to prevent the exploitation of coal resources in places like Appalachia and Wyoming's Powder River Basin. Another example of an interest group is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA's mission is to support gun training, education, and marksmanship. The NRA sponsors gun training classes; shooting competitions for hunters, police officers, and other civilians; and the Institute for Legislative Action, the branch of the NRA that lobbies government officials to protect the right of all law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. The NRA supports the federal Second Amendment Guarantee Act, which prevent states from effectively outlawing the sale or possession of commonly owned semiautomatic firearms and ammunition magazines. The Act would also prohibit states and localities from passing laws pertaining to those firearms that are stricter than federal law.

recruit civilians to join the military Explanation: Special interest groups do not recruit civilians to join the military. All of the other answer choices are mentioned in the passage. Special interest groups work to promote their viewpoints and achieve the goals of their members. The passage states, "Working to elect officials . . . lobbying officials already in office . . . and filing lawsuits on behalf of the members of the interest group are the tactics that interest groups use . . . ."

Which of the following describes the purpose of Section 158? South Dakota v. Dole (1987) - Majority Opinion "Title 23 U.S.C. [Section] 158 directs the Secretary of Transportation to withhold a percentage of otherwise allocable federal highway funds from States "in which the purchase or public possession . . . of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful." South Dakota, which permits persons 19 years old or older to purchase beer containing up to 3.2% alcohol, sued in Federal District Court for a declaratory judgment that [Section] 158 violates the constitutional limitations on congressional exercise of the spending power under [Article I, Section 8, clause 1], of the Constitution, and violates the Twenty-first Amendment. The District Court rejected the State's claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. "Held: Even if Congress, in view of the Twenty-first Amendment, might lack the power to impose directly a national minimum drinking age (a question not decided here), [Section] 158's indirect encouragement of state action to obtain uniformity in the States' drinking ages is a valid use of the spending power. "(a) Incident to the spending power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds. However, exercise of the power is subject to certain restrictions, including that it must be in pursuit of "the general welfare." Section 158 is consistent with such restriction, since the means chosen by Congress to address a dangerous situation -- the interstate problem resulting from the incentive, created by differing state drinking ages, for young persons to combine drinking and driving -- were reasonably calculated to advance the general welfare. Section 158 also is consistent with the spending power restrictions that, if Congress desires to condition the States' receipt of federal funds, it must do so unambiguously, enabling the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation; and that conditions on federal grants must be related to a national concern (safe interstate travel here). "(b) Nor is [Section] 158 invalidated by the spending power limitation that the conditional grant of federal funds must not be independently barred by other constitutional provisions (the Twenty-first Amendment here). Such limitation is not a prohibition on the indirect achievement of objectives which Congress is not empowered to achieve directly, but, instead, means that the power may not be used to induce the States to engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional. Here, if South Dakota were to succumb to Congress' blandishments and raise its drinking age to 21, its action would not violate anyone's constitutional rights. Moreover, the relatively small financial inducement offered by Congress here -- resulting from the State's loss of only 5% of federal funds otherwise obtainable under certain highway grant programs -- is not so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into compulsion."

to encourage the states to set their legal drinking ages to 21 Explanation: Section 158 provided that 5% of federal funds within the certain highway grants would be withheld for any state that did not have a minimum drinking age of 21. This legislation was meant to encourage the states to comply, even through Congress might have lacked the power to pass a national law with the same intent. Whenever adjudicating an issue like this one, the court determines whether the legislation acts as encouragement or compulsion. Federal coercion is strictly prohibited, which is why Congress only restricted 5% of the funding, an amount the Supreme Court determined "is not so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into compulsion."