Waiting for answer This question has not been answered yet. You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
QUESTION
Together North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia produce a large amount of cotton each year.
- Together North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia produce a large amount of cotton each year. In an effort to protect their farmers from overseas competition, the governors of these three states met and agreed on a uniform 'inspection fee" to be imposed on all foreign cotton coming into their states through their ports. They vowed to do their best to get their state legislatures to adopt this fee as law. Would any legal problem arise with such a fee?
- Due to threats by the president to set import quotas, the U.S. State Department negotiated directly with European and Japanese steel producers to limit their companies' exports to the United States. No foreign government was party to the agreement. Although the president has express authority to limit imports by an act of congress, this act required that he either hold public hearing through the Traff Commission about setting import quotas or deal directly with foreign governments about limiting imports. The consumers Union of U.S., Inc., felt that when congress gave the president this express power, it preempted any other action by the president. They brought an action against the secretary of state to have the president's agreement with private steel producers in Europe and japan declare illegall. what should be the result of suchan action?
- The State of Tennessee passed legislation requiring that any person selling or offering for sale in the state of Tennessee any meats that are the products of any foreign country must so identify any such product by labeling it "This meat is of foreign origin." The state law did not require a higher standard of purity and sanitation than that required by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A New York corporation selling imported meats to customers in Tennessee challenged this state statute in U.S. District Court. The corporation's sales of imported meat to customers in Tennessee were one-half of its volume prior to enactment of the statute. What do you think was the legal basis for this challenge to the Tennessee law? What do you think was Tennessee's argument for passing the law? What do you think the court decided? see: Tupman Thurlow Co. v. Moss, 252 F. Supp. 641 (M.D. Tenn. 1966).
