Answer:
India is the answer for this question
1- The correct answer is A. Samuel Houston was the Texan leader who most supported the annexation to the United States. In fact, he was President of the Republic of Texas twice, and from his position he always fought for annexation, unlike others like Mirabeau Lamar. In addition, it is stated that Houston went to Texas sent by President Andrew Jackson to achieve annexation.
2- Houston argued that the annexation had to be carried out to respect the will and right of the Texan people (which were made up of American settlers) to decide the legal status of their territory. This argument is related to the right of self-determination of peoples, which I consider valid since it's theb population who has the power to decide on their future and that of the territory they inhabit and administer, not being the states able to make decisions contrary to the people and their will.
Answer:
<h3>Ogden. Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824), U.S. Supreme Court case establishing the principle that states cannot, by legislative enactment, interfere with the power of Congress to regulate commerce.</h3><h3>Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; The significance of the Commerce Clause is described in the Supreme Court's opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1</h3><h3>The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution provides that the Congress shall have the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. The plain meaning of this language might indicate a limited power to regulate commercial trade between persons in one state and persons outside of that state</h3>
Explanation:
<h3>mark as brainliast</h3><h3>indian genius sarthak</h3>
If i’m not mistaken around 10-15%
