Hi there!
Because this question has been posted before, I'll post my previous response here.
The case of Gibbons v. Ogden was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1824 concerning the power of the states to regulate interstate commerce. This case involved a steamboat owner, Thomas Gibbons, who did business between New York and New Jersey and the then governor of New Jersey, Aaron Ogden. Gibbons argued that the monopoly Ogden had was a violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution and therefore not valid. This proved to be the case. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court decided that this law conflicted with federal law and the powers the federal government had to regulate interstate commerce. Under the Constitution, Congress has all powers necessary and proper to carry into effect the laws that it passes. This reinforced that clause.
From the options provided, this would be <span>Elastic Clause.
</span>
The answer is true. I hope you are truly enlightened while doing your homework.
Answer:
Explanation:
Rwandans take history seriously. Hutu who killed Tutsi did so for many reasons, but beneath the individual motivations lay a common fear rooted in firmly held but mistaken ideas of the Rwandan past. Organizers of the genocide, who had themselves grown up with these distortions of history, skillfully exploited misconceptions about who the Tutsi were, where they had come from, and what they had done in the past. From these elements, they fueled the fear and hatred that made genocide imaginable. Abroad, the policy-makers who decided what to do—or not do—about the genocide and the journalists who reported on it often worked from ideas that were wrong and out-dated. To understand how some Rwandans could carry out a genocide and how the rest of the world could turn away from it, we must begin with history
