In the case of Fletcher v. Peck the Supreme Court: a. supported the arguments of the state.
b. could not rule on the constitutionality of state laws.
c. upheld legislative fraud impaired contracts.
d. upheld the sanctity of contracts.

d. upheld the sanctity of contracts.

Explanation:

The case was caused by the fraudulent nature of the Yazoo land sale in Georgia. In 1795, lawyers in Georgia agreed to sell the Yazoo land to about four companies. John Peck was among those who acquired a part of the Yazoo lands. On reselling the land to Robert Fletcher some years later, it was discovered that the Yazoo Land Act had been repealed because the lawyers involved were bribed. Fletcher thus argued in court that because the original Act had been repealed, John Peck had no right to sell the land.

When the case was brought to the United States Supreme court, the judges unanimously upheld the sanctity of contracts stating that the contract was binding despite the fraudulent activities of the lawyers involved. Therefore, the Georgian state did not have the powers to invalidate a contract  that had legal backing.

answer:

i dont know

explanation: