Which statement best explains how the Compromise of 1850 attempted to
resolve debates over the expansion of slavery?
O
A. The compromise allowed California to join the United States as a
free state but would allow slavery in southwestern territories.
B. The compromise allowed slavery in new territories, but only free
territories would be allowed to become states.
O
C. The compromise allowed slavery in all new lands in the West but
outlawed the slave trade.
D. The compromise made all new territories free of slavery but
protected slavery where it existed.

the answer is states.

the hollywood film industry of 1950 was threatened on several different fronts. television broadcasting was rapidly becoming the dominant entertainment medium in the united states. the paramount anti-trust consent decree requiring separate ownership for production companies and theater chains had gone into effect on 1 january 1950. large numbers of young men and women were marrying, having children, and moving to the suburbs, which affected the viability of downtown first-run movie theaters. foreign revenues were endangered by protectionist tactics including quota systems, high taxes, and blocked funds. finally, the morality and patriotism of hollywood films and filmmakers were under attack from government, religious, and citizens' groups.

explanation:

c

explanation:

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is