2.8k views
0 votes
The IRS disagrees with the stance of the court and will continue to litigate the issue in the future.

a) True
b) False

User Falsetru
by
8.3k points

1 Answer

2 votes

Final answer:

Colonists objected to how taxes were applied, not taxation itself, which is true. The Three-Fifths Compromise did deal with both representation and taxation, which is true. The necessary and proper clause expanded rather than limited federal power, which makes the statement false. option b is correct

Step-by-step explanation:

The statements in question are rooted in historical context regarding the American colonists, the U.S. Constitution, and the early political debates of the United States. Regarding the principle of taxation, it is true that the colonists did not necessarily object to taxation itself but were more concerned with how the tax money would be applied and the lack of representation they had in the British Parliament

Regarding the Three-Fifths Compromise, it is also true that this agreement dealt with the issue of representation and taxation by determining that three-fifths of the slave population would be counted for determining both representation in the House of Representatives and taxation purposes.

The assertion that the necessary and proper clause has limited the power of the national government is false; it has actually been used to expand it. Finally, the claim that Pennsylvania's constitution during the Revolutionary Era was one of the most conservative is false; it was actually one of the most democratic and progressive constitutions of that time. option b is correct

User Malx
by
7.8k points