In Hughes v. Oklahoma, Oklahoma law forbid the export of natural minnows, to help protect the state's natural resources. When this law was challenged, the Supreme Court held:
A) Oklahoma has a paramount interest in preserving its natural resources, so the law stands
B) Oklahoma has no interest in preserving minnows, so the law fails
C) Oklahoma violated the constitution by impermissibly burdening interstate commerce
D) regulation of fish falls under the Fish and Wildlife Service, so Oklahoma preempted a federal law
E) none of the other choices
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q205: According to the Supreme Court, an Arizona
Q206: In Hughes v. Oklahoma, Oklahoma law forbid
Q207: In Hughes v. Oklahoma, Oklahoma law forbid
Q208: In Hughes v. Oklahoma, Oklahoma law forbid
Q209: In Hughes v. Oklahoma, Oklahoma law forbid
Q211: In South-Central Timber Development v. Wunnicke, concerning
Q212: States may not copy federal regulations if:
A)
Q213: In Hughes v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court
Q214: In Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, concerned
Q215: According to the Supreme Court, a Maine
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents