Answer:
1- McCulloch v. Maryland:
-The Second Bank of the United States was involved in the case.
-The Supreme Court ruled that a state could not tax a federal institution
2- Gibbons v. Ogden:
-The state of New York was involved in the case.
-The Supreme Court ruled that a state could not regulate commercial activities between states.
-A state-granted one company exclusive rights over the Hudson river.
Explanation:
1- McCulloch v. Maryland was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1819, in which the state of Maryland was barred from levying a tax on federal banks operating in its territory. As a result, the principle of federalism triumphed over state rights, while the constitutional "Necessary and Proper Clause," which allows Congress to carry out certain actions not expressly stated in the Constitution but that appear to conform with those permitted activities, remained in effect.
2- Gibbons v. Ogden was a Supreme Court decision from 1824 that upheld the federal government's authority to control interstate trade. This is due to a dispute between New York and New Jersey, which was supposed to be settled by municipal courts but ended up breaching the Supreme Court's original authority and the states' right to equality.
Answer:
answer is D because it makes sense
It's (D), Colonists had to struggle to grow enough food to meet their needs.
Which of the following best characterizes European interest in Ming China’s trade goods?
C. The Portuguese had a growing interest in Chinese silk
Which statement summarizes advantages that Dutch East India Company traders had over Portuguese and Spanish traders?D. The company could wage war and govern overseas territories<span>6. Why did global trade lead Portugal to establish coastal outposts around the Indian Ocean?
</span> To give Portugal control of trade routes to East Indies spices
Which geographic factor most helped Ming China strictly limit trade with Europeans?<span>C. Europeans in China were far from their countries' support</span>
