Answer:
Georgia’s refusal to ratify the 13th Amendment
Explanation:
The 13th amendment was made to abolish slavery in united states.
At that time, Georgia's economy was heavily reliant on Slaves as their main labor force. So the Governor of Georgia At that time refused to ratify the 13th amendment.
To handle this, The central Government at that time put Georgia under military rule in order to 'Force' Georgia to abolish slavery and ratify the 13th amendment.
Answer:this would mean that you(A) are in the experimental group
Explanation:
There are usually two groups in any proper experiment since they want to test the new drug whether it can treat the cold,they will be participants who will be given the drug and those who will not be given the drug.
The group of participants that receive the drug that is being tested is referred to as an experimental group. Those who do not receive the drug may be referred to as a control group. Usually the experimental group is compared to a control group to see what changes does the drug do to an individual who has taken it compared to the ones who hasn't taken it .
Answer:no
Explanation:
The reconstruction process didn't work but in my own opinion it was brought about the end of slavery but it didn't end the segregation and inequality....after the era of the reconstruction there were no longer slaves because of rules put in place but it didn't end segregation and inequality
Answer: A. The statute burdens foreign commerce
Explanation:
The options are:
A. The statute burdens foreign commerce.
B. The statute violates equal protection guarantees because it is not rational to prohibit the sale of foreign beef but not foreign leather.
C. The statute substantially interferes with the vendor's right to earn a living under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D. The statute constitutes a taking without due process of law.
From the question, we are informed that a cattle-producing state adopted a statute that requires any food service business operating in the state to serve beef raised in the United States and that a licensed hot dog vendor who worked at a football field within the state and who had been buying hot dogs made with foreign beef for the past several years calculated that switching to an all-beef hot dog made from United States beef would reduce his profits by 10%.
The vendor then hired an attorney to challenge the statute and the attorney discovered during research into the case that most of the footballs used at the football field at which the vendor worked were made of foreign leather.
Based on the above scenario, it should be noted that it is the Congress that has power to regulate foreign commerce. Hence, in this scenario, the state adopting a legislation that requires the private vendors to favor the breed served in the United States over the foreign products is outside its powers scope. Only the congress can make such decision.
Yes, it is the second one you selected!
