Because usually the 'bad stuff' is usually quite vague, and since it's a form of the internet, there's not much anybody can do to stop it.
"Wilheim II wanted to end Bismarck's growing influence over German politics" is the statement among the choices given in the question that describes the relationship between the third German Emperor Wilheim II and Bismarck, prior to Bismarck's dismissal from <span>government. The correct option is option "C". </span>
1.the colonies were afraid of losing their own autonomy.
2.The British also dropped the plan because they wanted to make the management of the colonies simple.
3.It failed because every colony had their own agenda.
Answer:
capitalism.
Explanation:
Commodification can be defined as the transformation of something into some good or service that can generate value for an individual and generate profit through its commercialization.
In the long run, commodification has instituted capitalist economic policy on the basis that capitalism is the generation of profits.
A capitalist system works by operating private properties of commerce and industry without state interference so that they can transform something into goods to be sold on the market and accumulate profits.
Individuals have needs that are met by the economy in the form of products and services, which feed the market and the capitalist system is strategically taking advantage to increasingly institute the commodification that will make the system achieve the main objective of wealth accumulation.
Well even though im not gigivng you the two paragraphs you need, I can give you information on two of the cases so that you can write about them: <span>McCulloch vs. Maryland: "The power to tax equals the power to destroy" -- The state of Maryland attempted to tax the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States (federally-created) -- Confirmed the legitimacy (in Marshall's opinion) of the Bank of the United States, thus upholding Congress' use of the elastic clause. Also further emphasized Article VI (Supremacy Clause) that the states had no power to tax a federal institution. Clearly defining that federal law/power trumps state.
Gibbons vs. Ogden: Federally issued permit vs. State (NY) issued permit to navigate waterways around New York. Marshall court re-emphasized Article VI (Supremacy) stating that federal law trumps state AND this decision further emphasized the Commerce Clause stating that commerce was not defined solely as the buying and selling of goods, but the transportation thereof as well. Establishing that only the national Congress had the ability to regulate INTERstate trade, further strengthening the federal government over the states. Hope this works for you.</span>
