Answer:
Connecticut and Rhode Island
Explanation:
Answer:
Those parties agree to restrain competition
Explanation:
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1980 deals specifically about the regulation of competitions among enterprises. It was principally authored or engineered by Senator John Sherman, under President Benjamin Harrison, hence, the name Sherman Act.
Sherman Antitrust Act which is divided into three section, has its first section which is section 1 worded as:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
The main purpose of this, is to forbid or make illegal any anticompetition practices.
Umm I don’t know if you can laugh. I mean you could be a BOT for all I know...
Answer:
C. systematic desensitization
Explanation:
systematic desensitization is a form of behavioral treatment that is carried out by exposing the patients to the source of fear in a controlled manner. The intensity of the exposure usually will start really small and will be increased as the treatment goes on. Over time, the patient will be used to confronting the source of fear and the fear will eventually reduced / went away.
This can be seen in what the Therapist did to Kayla. He asked her to think about her fears and tried to relax in that situation before eventually move up to asking her to use crowded elevators to conform her fear of closed spaces.
Answer:The Statute is an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause.
Explanation:The Statute is an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause. Regulation of foreign commerce is exclusively a federal power because of the need for the federal government to speak with one voice when regulating commercial relations with foreign governments. The existence of legitimate state interests underlying state legislation will not justify state regulation of foreign commerce. The state statute, in imposing requirements for a license costing $50 and for a clear marking of goods as being from a foreign country, clearly is an attempt by the state to restrict or even eliminate the flow of such goods in foreign commerce. Thus, the statute is unconstitutional.