I don’t know sskdjsjsjsjzj
Answer:
Throughout the clarification segment elsewhere here, the definition including its concern is mentioned.
Explanation:
- Through me, the demand for amounts of unhealthy food seems to be inelastic in terms of costs. I acknowledge that as the cost goes up, consumers will consume less junk food, but perhaps the decrease in the supply is lower than that of the rising rise. It might be because, already though, substitutes for junk foods, particularly across the Us, are challenging to find. Unhealthy food is just the shortest and simplest meal to consume.
- The reasoning here seems to be that every customer would have to purchase food even though the price rises by 1%, so consumption will still decrease by somewhere around 1%. So perhaps we can assume that quality does not influence quantities throughout the Junk Food industry.
- The reduction of excess baggage would be small since it is inelastic. This symbolizes the corporation's low incompetence and as the cost is changed, the market for quantities is approximately the same, not so much impact.
- I thought taxing junk foods, especially to maximize welfare spending, is a smart option. But obesity over here Is not going to help. The incorrect method for combating obesity as well as making our diets balanced is taxes. The irony is that all clients are impacted by taxes regardless of their weight status. The impact of food taxes is unclear and may result in the replacement of items that may comprise of calories that seem to be equivalent or higher.
B.cotton from the south were carried on railroads to shippings ports to be exported
Answer:
B) Judiciary Act of 1789.
Explanation:
John Marshall ruled on this case as the Chief Justice. He first answered that Marbury had a right to his job because it had been signed and approved. The actual delivery was a custom, not a requirement. He then ruled that a writ of mandamus (a type of court order) was the correct way for Marbury to rule. Finally, he noted that the Judiciary Act of 1789 allowed the Supreme Court to make this kind of ruling.
<em>The next question was who could decide this issue. Marshall ruled that the Supreme Court could decide it because the Judiciary Act of 1789 said that they could. However, Marshall said that a section of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional. That section allowed the Supreme Court to make a writ but the United States Constitution did not. Therefore, that section was unconstitutional and the Supreme Court could not make a writ for Marbury.
</em>
Marshall looking over the Constitution and the statute is judicial review, a statement that the Supreme Court had an independent power to determine whether something was constitutional or not.
I believe that the answer is b
