0
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Rafa
Steve
Coach
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why might some people say Article 7 of the Constitution is no longer needed?
Why are some people say that Article BIO is no longer needed
What is the fourth article of the constitution about?
Article 4 concerns the states. Section 1 mandates that all states will honor the laws of all other states; this ensures, for example, that a couple married in Florida is also considered married by Arizona, or that someone convicted of a crime in Virginia is considered guilty by Wyoming. Section 2 guarantees that citizens of one state be treated equally and fairly like all citizens of another. It also says that if a person accused of a crime in one state flees to another, they will be returned to the state they fled from. This section also has a clause dealing with fugitive slaves that no longer applies. Section 3 concerns the admittance of new states and the control of federal lands. Section 4 ensures a republican form of government (which, in this case, is synonymous with "representative democracy," and both of which are opposed to a monarchical or aristocratic scheme - the state derives its power from the people, not from a king) and guarantees that the federal government will protect the states against invasion and insurrection.
Who brought prohibition back?
no one. prohibition is no longer in effect.
If a section of the constitution is no longer in use that is nearly always because it has been?
it has been changed by an amendment
What was the US Supreme Court case of 1886 that prevented states from regulating railroads or other forms of interstate commerce?
Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company v. Illinois, (1886) resulted from a dispute between the railway company and the state of Illinois over shipping charges for transporting cargo from various cities in Illinois to cities in other states.Illinois law prohibited charging higher freight for moving goods shorter distances than for moving them longer distances, and imposed fines on railroad companies that failed to comply with their regulations. Specifically at issue was the fact Wabash charged more to transport goods from Gilman, Illinois, to New York than from Peoria, Illinois, to New York, even though the distance from Gilman to New York was 86 miles shorter.The US Supreme Court held that the Illinois statute prevented the state from regulating freight charges based on the specific point of departure, concluding that a voyage consisted of departure from anywhere in the interior of Illinois to New York (the ruling could be generalized to other states and destinations).The Court further held that the case involved a matter of "commerce among the states," which was properly regulated by Congress, not the States, per the US Constitution's Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) and its Necessary and Proper Clause* (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18).The Court declared that the decision in Wabash did not establish a contrary doctrine to rulings in earlier cases, such as Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113 (1877); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155, (1876) and Peik v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway, 94 U. S. 164 (1876).The decision of the Illinois court was reversed, and the State's transportation statute struck down as unconstitutional.Ok just to make it earier the answer isWabash v. Illinois
