<span>The test that was developed by the dissenters to determine whether the commerce clause applies to a particular activity is called "SUBSTANTIAL EFFECTS" test.
Substantial effects test is needed when an intrastate commerce activity affects an interstate commerce which may result to a growth or decay of its economy. If this happens, then Congress has the right to regulate the activity in pursuit of abiding by the Commerce Clause.</span>
Advantages-
Sharecroppers had rights as human people, they didn't get beaten, they had a faint chance of making a profit, there was no upfront cash payment needed from the sharecroppers,
Disadvantages-
If the farm couldn't produce a high yield, the sharecropper and his family would not make enough money to pay the rent. So they would have to sell almost all of their crops for rent, saving very little.
The sharecroppers worked very hard in the lands, but had an extremely low standard of living, less money, and no ACTUAL ownership of the land
Children who contributed to the sharecropping could not go to school
If the fields were to be ruined by weather or pests, sharecroppers were forced out of their land with nothing or no where to go
If they couldn't pay back the farmers lending the land, they would have to keep working for years, practically enslaved
I believe the correct answer from the choices listed above is option C. An important factor in the development of the British Empire in the 19th century was its naval supremacy. At this time, it emerged as the principal naval and imperial power (with London the largest city in the world from about 1830). Hope this answers the question.
It is a term used in reference to WW1
<em>A. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978</em>
Explanation:
The USA Patriot Act of 2001 was made to ensure previous laws and make it easier for the government to find and hunt terrorism. This was set in motion after 9/11 to stop further terrorist agenda. A big law that was strengthened by this was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. The point of FISA was so the government had the means to electronically or physically search individuals who they thought were engaging or were going to engage in terrorist acts. FISA ensured government officials that they could take extra steps to finding terrorists, like searching different business records and surveillance with cameras, which some may argue is unconstitutional.