How did president franklin roosevelt respond to concerns from the supreme court about the constitutionality of the new deal programs?

The Supreme Court considered unconstitutional the New Deal programs. Therefore, in 1937, Roosevelt decided to counter-attack by proposing five new justices. This caused difficulties with the Conservatives.

The Congress and the public turned to the right and The New Deal was expanding scarcely.

When Court members retired, Roosevelt replaces them with supporters that helped him to keep the New Deal programs alive.

Despite the open confrontation of the Supreme Court against the New Deal, Roosevelt did not react immediately or present his opposition to the ruling in a clear manner. The historian James M. Burns reports that Roosevelt received the news of the annulment of the agrarian law when he was with Secretary of War Dern and how he commented on the president's reaction: "He put the sheet of paper in front of him and smiled." Roosevelt's plan for the Supreme Court to fall into its own trap was possibly hidden behind that smile.

Remember that the sentence came in a year of presidential elections in which Roosevelt was to be the Democratic candidate and should be careful not to lose votes. Two days after the decision of the Supreme Court, at the "Jackson Day" dinner in Washington, President Roosevelt showed a reserved attitude, behavior that was supported by a section of the American population, and which he justified by saying:

"I know you are not surprised because I have not commented on the decision of the Supreme Court two days ago. I can not make a judgment in advance without studying it with great care ... It is enough to say that getting justice for American agriculture is the most immediate and constant goal "

mohenjo-daro is located west of the indus river in larkana district

1- in bradbury's  fahrenheit 451, all books are banned and burned upon discovery. in the nazi germany, books considered to be subversive to the regime would be burned to keep the population from generating ideologies that could challenge nazism.

2- was bradbury correct in his literal interpretation of  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.”? in some way, yes. when knowledge is not only limited, but also controlled, the people tied to it are led to their demise. just like in the novel, people in nazi germany who owned  subversive books were punished not only by the burning of their property, but also by the discrimination that followed after such a public form of consequence. if a person was seen being confiscated  subversive  books, they may be considered as an ally to the jews, which meant pretty much the same as being the enemy back then. because of the extreme exclusion and suffering that followed this punishment, it's almost like dying a slow death.

in this way, the phrase  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.” is both literal and figurative.

explanation:

mark brainliest and have a great day!