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.
Section4. In 1865 President Andrew Johnson implemented a plan of Reconstruction that gave the white South a free hand in regulating the transition from slavery to freedom and offered no role to blacks in the politics of the South.
Answer:
Are the odds stacked against revolutionaries? ... Should oppressed people revolt? ... The oppressed should not endure oppression but instead should take steps ... (Williams 2001) There are alternatives of revolution as the oppressed should ... that revolutions cause more harm than good as most people don't prefer them.
Explanation:
Yeah i would agree with the last one cos like it’s easier to get their point across idrk sorryyy
