Answer: because the mustang is on the right so they have the right away
Explanation:
Answer:
C. Under the clause, states may not discriminate against citizens of other states in the buying and selling of property.
Explanation:
The Privileges and Immunities clause is found in Article IV of the United States Constitution and it prevents the states to treat in a discriminatory manner to citizens of other states. It also does not contain a market participation exception so, when the State acts as a supplier like in the case of selling or buying properties according to this clause it is forbidden to discriminate non-residents.
I hope this answer helps you.
Answer:
providing a basis for compromise
Explanation:
Because the framers of the United States Constitution (written in 1787) believed that protecting property rights relating to inventions would encourage the new nation’s economic growth, they gave Congress—the national legislature—a constitutional mandate to grant patents for inventions. The resulting patent system has served as a model for those in other nations. Recently, however, scholars have questioned whether the American system helped achieve the framers’ goals. These scholars have contended that from 1794 to roughly 1830, American inventors were unable to enforce property rights because judges were “anticipate” and routinely invalidated patents for arbitrary reasons. This argument is based partly on examination of court decisions in cases where patent holders (“patentees”) brought suit alleging infringement of their patent rights. In the 1820s, for instance, 75 percent of verdicts were decided against the patentee. The proportion of verdicts for the patentee began to increase in the 1830s, suggesting to these scholars that judicial attitudes toward patent rights began shifting then.
To learn more about protecting property rights visit here ; brainly.com/question/28388414?referrer=searchResults
#SPJ4
Answer:
Brayden should dispose of the gum
Explanation:
In the given scenario the law in Singapore states that having chewing gum is illegal. As far as Brayden is in Singapore he should comply with the law there.
The equal protection clause is a provision of law that states that all citizens must be treated equally under the law.
Although this gives one the right to take retain actions, in this case Brayden will be restricted from having chewing gum.
Of he is allowed to carry chewing gum then he expects to be treated differently from others in Singapore. This violates the equal protection clause
