According to the ruling in new york times v. united states, which best describes what the government had to prove for its
censorship of the new york times to have been acceptable?

The government had to prove that the articles would have had to indisputably harm the nation for it's censorship to have been acceptable.

Explanation:

The ruling for the New York Times v. the United States was "heard by the Supreme Court." The ruling was in favor of the newspapers to be able to publish classified articles without the worry of being arrested or the newspaper shut down.  

With this ruling, both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal were able to publish the Pentagon papers that President Nixon didn't want to be released. The president tried to say he had executive authority to suspend the newspaper and not allow the articles to be published, and this is why the newspaper went to the Supreme Court.

answer:

won re-nomination with no opposition he also had the support of his party

explanation:

it saw incumbent president andrew jackson, candidate of the democratic party, defeat henry clay, candidate of the national republican party. jackson won re-nomination with no opposition, and the 1832 democratic national convention replaced vice president john c. calhoun with martin van buren.

the outcome of 1970 oil crisis in united states was that, they began to search ways on how to reduce oil.

in 1970 was a period when there were energy and oil crisis. those who were major centers for industrialization were forced to keep way from supplying of petroleum.

some of the result of this crisis was economic growth became stagnant because prices of oil surged.

due to the increased prices some countries like mexico and norway benefited.