Answer:
The Court upheld the statute only in the case of states that could provide matching funds; and if matching funds could not be provided.
Explanation:
The case was resolved 7-2 with the majority vote wrote by the Chief Justice William Rehnquist. It stated that the statue was a valid interpretation of the Spending Clause and that it was not unconstitutional. Congress has the authority of regulating the spends but not till the point they applied coercion.
I hope this answer helps you.
Answer:
decrease in supply.
Explanation:
its effect is to shift the supply curve
Answer:
<em></em>
<em>Article III of the Constitution </em>establishes a very high bar for convicting an American for treason. However, like other aspects of the Constitution, the exact meaning of this provision is being discussed by constitutional scholars. This reads the following:
Treason against the United States shall consist solely of waging war against them, or of adhering to their enemies, providing them with assistance and comfort.<em> No person shall be convicted of Treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on the open court confession.
</em>
Explanation:
The explanation the prosecutions for treason are very rare is that the <em>conviction requires two witnesses to the act of treason. </em>In summary, by default, the definition of treason is quite narrow. This means that conviction for treason in American history is very difficult and therefore very rare.
Answer:
it may prejudice the potential jurors against the defendant
