In the 1950s, illinois enacted legislation requiring trucks to have curved mud flaps. there was no federal law about mud flaps at the time, but the illinois statute was enacted because state legislators asserted that the curved mud flaps were more effective in preventing accidents than the straight mud flaps. several trucking companies brought suit, because the illinois statute conflicted with the laws of other states that required straight mud flaps. was the illinois statute constitutional? a. no because it violated the commerce clause. b. yes because it did not discriminate against out of state truckers. c. no, the supremacy clause does not allow conflicting state legislation. d. yes, there was no federal statute so the state statute did not violate the supremacy clause.

aa

explanation:

literally the answer is aa. not kidding. aa is a group.

i need !

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.