1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
liq [111]
3 years ago
6

Imagine the state of California passes a law to tax all banking activities within the state. Which of the following could happen

?
The national bank of the United States, or the Federal Reserve, could challenge the California law based on the McCulloch v. Maryland
decision
The national bank of the United States, or the Federal Reserve, could take the taxes California collects based on the McCulloch v. Maryland
decision
Private banks operating only in the state of California could challenge the state's tax law on banking based on the Gibbons v. Ogden decision.
Private banks operating only in the state of California could take a portion of the taxes collected based on the Gibbons v. Ogden decision.
History
1 answer:
Agata [3.3K]3 years ago
7 0

Answer: A

Explanation:

You might be interested in
What reasons does Beveridge give for a foreign policy of intervention?
lapo4ka [179]

Answer:

Albert Jeremiah Beveridge (1862-1927) was a supporter of the United States imperialism overseas, he rapidly turned into an important voice in American foreign policy. Most of Beveridge's speech functioned through the notion of Manifest Destiny , Social Darwinism, evangelism, comercial ambition, and American patriotism. Beveridge firmly stablished his arguments in the themes of liberty and civilization.

Th main idea of the Manifest Destiny, which stated that the expansion of America was in accordance to divine providence, combined with the demonstration of liberal democracy for the benefit of all mankind, meaning that the United States was provided with a mission to initiate a nation set apart by God, which would expand its advanced politics, economics, culture and religion into the world.

Manifest Destiny influenced Beveridge's reasoning in three determining ways: First, it assists his notion of Anglo-Saxon racial superiority. He believed that his race came from the Teutons, he outlined attributes that gave the Anglo-American race its undeniable superiority. In addition, Manifest Destiny gave Beveridge the idea that white Americans were God's chosen people. With God on their side, Americans replaced natives and expanded across the continent in the name of civilization.

Second, Manifest Destiny promoted Beveridge's argument for expansion as a fundamental part of God's arrangements. If the project of expansion was not attended, European powers would obtain the territories God had specifically assigned to American protection.  

Finally, Manifest Destiny gave Beveridge a more ethical reason to participate in imperial actions beyond the reasoning of commercial dominion.  American citizens believed God had also blessed the nation by its separation from the rest of the world's problems. By the late 1800s, involvement in the world's affairs meant that America could achieve the riches promised throughout the centuries to God's chosen people.

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
December 7, 1941, is known as a "date that will live in infamy," referring to:
kobusy [5.1K]

Answer:

Option B.

Explanation:

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, is the right answer.

Delivered on 8th December 1941 by the then U.S. President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Infamy Speech was an address to a Joint Session of the Congress of the United States. It was delivered on the very next day of the attack of Japan on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and the announcement of Japanese for the combat on the U.S. and Britain. Accordingly, the speech is popularly regarded as the "Pearl Harbor Speech".

6 0
3 years ago
Why do people support the Right to Bear Arms amendment?
EleoNora [17]

Answer:

Explanation:Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).

5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Name three ideas that contributed to the making of our Constitution. For a Brainliest
s344n2d4d5 [400]

Answer/ Explanation:

People of India were emerging from the status of subjects to that of citizens. The country was formed after a partition on the basis of religious differences. It was a traumatic experience for the people of India and Pakistan.

Our constitution members already know the basic needs and nature of our country. 2.Being under the British we already know the working of the political institutes. 3.In 1928, Motilal neheru and 8 other congeres members had already drafted a constitution for our nation.

8 0
3 years ago
What are the definitions of CSR? Describe 4 Theories of CSR
Leno4ka [110]

Answer:

Corporate social responsibility is a type of international private business self-regulation that aims to contribute to societal goals of a philanthropic, activist, or charitable nature by engaging in or supporting volunteering or ethically-oriented practices.

Explanation:

(sorry but i dont know about the theories)

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which of the following is an example of the Constitution's system of checks and balances?
    9·1 answer
  • 7. Why are some people critical of these trading blocs?
    8·1 answer
  • PLEASE HELP ME:
    15·1 answer
  • Discuss the impact of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand
    8·1 answer
  • Why was Washington in favor of ratifying?
    14·1 answer
  • What things did the incas use to make their houses
    9·2 answers
  • What are some of the the pros and cons of conquering more territory in the Byzantine Empire?
    6·1 answer
  • The Enlightenment is responsible for many things, including being directly responsible for the creation of the world's first gre
    5·1 answer
  • How did a radical republican feel about Lincoln's inaugural speech?​
    10·1 answer
  • 3. List the three major monotheistic faiths.
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!