History, 06.01.2021 08:00 lychee1406

why do you think the Sherman Antitrust Act and other attempts at regulating monopolies and trusts were not effective?

Answers: 3

Show answers

Answers

Answer from: aliviafrancois2000

For more than a decade after its passage, the Sherman Act was invoked only rarely against industrial monopolies, and then not successfully, chiefly because of narrow judicial interpretations of what constitutes trade or commerce among states. When it was first passed, the Sherman Antitrust Act was largely ineffective at stopping industrial monopolies. Courts at the time tended to hold a very narrow view of what constituted “trade or commerce among states,” and most companies were not held liable under the act. For more than a decade after its passage, the Sherman Antitrust Act was invoked only rarely against industrial monopolies, and then not successfully. Ironically, its only effective use for a number of years was against labor unions, which were held by the courts to be illegal combinations.

Answer from: Quest

1. international: struggle for hegemony and empire outstrips the fiscal resources of the state

2. political conflict: conflict between the monarchy and the nobility over the “reform” of the tax system led to paralysis and bankruptcy.

3. the enlightenment: impulse for reform intensifies political conflicts; reinforces traditional aristocratic constitutionalism, one variant of which was laid out in montequieu’s spirit of the laws; introduces new notions of good government, the most radical being popular sovereignty, as in rousseau’s social contract [1762]; the attack on the regime and privileged class by the literary underground of “grub street; ” the broadening influence of public opinion.

4. social antagonisms between two rising groups: the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie

5. ineffective ruler: louis xvi

6. economic hardship, especially the agrarian crisis of 1788-89 generates popular discontent and disorders caused by food shortages.

Can someone me write a paragraph on this topic i feel confused

Answer from: Quest

the articles of confederation only set up the continental congress at the federal level. there were no executive or judicial branches except within the states. the states were allowed to keep every right that was not specifically given to congress. the bonding of the states was through a 'firm league of friendship' that best served as a defense agreement against invasion. states were not allowed to use taxes as a way to discourage treaties, and states were extremely limited in their dealings with foreign nations.

not many historians today talk about the strengths of the articles of confederation, likely because of how unpopular the document quickly became. the articles did set the legislative body, congress, as the highest power in the nation because of the fear of monarchy. congress had the sole power to declare war, assign treaties, entertain foreign relations, and operate post offices. disputes between states and territorial issues were to be brought to congress. the document also stipulated that canada was allowed to enter the union if they desired.

there were more weaknesses than strengths under the articles of confederation. the lack of power given to the continental congress strangled the federal government. the articles gave congress the power to pass laws but no power to enforce those laws. if a state did not support a federal law, that state could simply ignore it. congress had no power to levy taxes or regulate trade. without a federal court system or executive leader, there would be no way to enforce these laws, either. amending the articles of confederation would also require a unanimous decision, which would be extremely difficult.