The election I see friendly nations around the world pointing fingers at our once great country and once noble leadership. I see a president who is deliberately undermining the election. I see a ruined Republican Party, exchanging love of country for position and power, displaying rank hypocrisy over the Supreme Court.
I think this is a true or false question. The answer is true. In the Battle of Saratoga, American powers vanquished the British Army of General John Burgoyne in September and October 1777 and brought about the French entering the American Revolution in favor of the United States. Doors was the administrator of the American armed force, yet Arnold, his subordinate, was more alluring and is credited with driving an American charge which was definitive in the second fight at Saratoga on Oct. 7, 1777
The case was "<span>Texas v white".
Texas v. White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is "an indestructible union" from which no state can withdraw. In 1850 the territory of Texas got $10,000,000 in government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state withdrew from the Union and joined the Alliance. In 1862 the confederationist administration of the state exchanged the bonds to private people in installment for Confederate military supplies. After the Civil War the Reconstruction state government filed a suit in the Supreme Court trying to recoup the bonds, at that point held by citizens of different states.
</span>
Answer:Hope This Helps
Explanation:
On February 4, 1887, both the Senate and House passed the Interstate Commerce Act, which applied the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause”—granting Congress the power “to Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States”—to regulating railroad rates. Small businesses and farmers were protesting that the railroads charged them higher rates than larger corporations, and that the railroads were also setting higher rates for short hauls than for long-distance hauls. Although the railroads claimed economic justification for policies that favored big businesses, small shippers insisted that the railroads were gouging them.
It took years for Congress to respond to these protests, due to members’ reluctance to have the government interfere in any way with corporate policies. In 1874 legislation was introduced calling for a federal railroad commission. The bill passed the House, but not the Senate. When Congress failed to act, some states adopted their own railroad regulations. Those laws were struck down in 1886, when the Supreme Court ruled in that the state of Illinois could not restrict the rates that the Wabash Railroad was charging because its freight traffic moved between the states, and only the federal government could regulate interstate commerce. Continued public anger over unfair railroad rates prompted Illinois senator Shelby M. Cullom to hold the hearings that led to the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act.
That law limited railroads to rates that were “reasonable and just,” forbade rebates to high-volume users, and made it illegal to charge higher rates for shorter hauls. To hear evidence and render decisions on individual cases, the act created the Interstate Commerce Commission. This was the first federal independent regulatory commission, and it served as a model for others that would follow, from the Federal Trade Commission to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Evolving technology eventually made the purpose of the ICC obsolete, and in 1995 Congress abolished the commission, transferring its remaining functions to the Surface Transportation Board. But while the ICC has come and gone, its creation marked a significant turning point in federal policy. Before 1887, Congress had applied the Commerce Clause only on a limited basis, usually to remove barriers that the states tried to impose on interstate trade. The Interstate Commerce Act showed that Congress could apply the Commerce Clause more expansively to national issues if they involved commerce across state lines. After 1887, the national economy grew much more integrated, making almost all commerce interstate and international. The nation rather than the Constitution had changed. That development turned the Commerce Clause into a powerful legislative tool for addressing national problems.
The british angered the colonists
