Answer:
In that case, the Court ruled that the 1923 Texas state law was unconstitutional, because it allowed the state Democratic Party to racially discriminate. After the case, most Southern states ended their selectively inclusive white primaries.
In this scenario, the government would have been forced to take land from white farmers and give it to newly freed slaves.
Many politicians were unwilling to confiscate land from white farmers to give it to blacks farmers because they felt this was a violation of American citizens natural rights. During this time period, ownership of land was seen as extremely valuable as agriculture was still the main source of income for most American families. By taking away someone's land and giving it to someone else, politicians felt that they would be creating an extremely powerful and tryannical federal government. This is why the government never takes farm land and gives it to newly freed African American citizens.
A provisions of the Us neutrality act of 1935 : prohibited the sale of arms to any belligerent nations
The act of helping in weapon supply can be deemed as an act of favouritsm and couldn't be considered as neutral
Hope this helps!
A is the only answer that makes any sense
The best option from the list in terms of the concept of equality of opportunity would be "<span>a. Public schools may not exclude students because of their sex or race," since this would be a form of segregation. </span>
