During world war 1 it was a crime to criticize the president or the war effort. Would a court today find such a law as a constitutional valid interpretation of the dirt amendment? Why or why not

A court today would not find that to be constitutionally valid.

Explanation:

There is a multitude of laws that override the censorship of press, especially to criticize the president. When there are restrictions in free speech, citizens may feel as though they are being dis-empowered. The first amendment allows for free speech, and even if the sitting president feels that it may be harmful, they have no authority to stop free speech.

d. japan's attack on pearl harbor

it provided for selection of government employees through competitive examinations. it also made it unlawful to fire or demote covered employees for political reasons or to require them to give political service or payment, and it set up a civil service commission to enforce the law.

explanation: