The Gibbons v. Ogden court case in a nutshell:
Ogden had a monopoly on operating steamboats on the Lower Mississippi.
Gibbons, who had a federal liscence to operate steamboats, tried to start business there and was sued by Ogden.
The ruling was that Gibbons would be allowed to operate there, which gave precedent to federal law over state law.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Here we have just a statement. There is no question. It seems that you forgot to include the question.
However, trying to help you, we did some deep search and can say the following.
The missing part is this: <em>"Is imperialism, in this case, justified, sometimes justified, or never justified and why?"</em>
If that is the case, then the answer would be "no." There is not a valid justification for imperialistic practices anymore. That is a questionable practice from the superpower nations that in the past invaded and colonized many territories. They could say whatever wanted to say, but the real reason behind colonizing was not to help the underdeveloped country progress. No.
The real reason for colonizing was simply to exploit the many raw materials and natural reo¿sources of the colony.
I think that there are many examples through history, One notable, the Scramble for Africa from 1881 to 1914.
The pharaoh united and governed Egypt
Answer:
The colonists protested in front of the tax house resulting in the Boston massacre.
Explanation:
Answer:
In Athens only adult males with military training could vote and they voted for everything unlike in us citizens age 18 and above can vote and in US the people elect representivites to represents them.
Explanation: