What was the situation before the supreme courts decision in the mcculloch v. maryland case
a. state laws were superior to federal laws
b. the constitution had never been amended
c. it was unclear whether state laws could interfere with federal laws
d. states were allowed to regulate commerce outside their own states

The correct answer is C. Before the Supreme Court decision in the McCulloch v. Maryland case, it was unclear whether state laws could interfere with federal laws.

Explanation:

The Supreme Court ruling in the McCulloch v. Maryland case of 1819 is one of the most important decisions in the history of American jurisprudence.

The state of Maryland had attempted to obstruct the functioning of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States. Maryland demanded its unconstitutionality, as an expression of an act of government not provided for by the constitution. The state had previously imposed a prohibitive tax on all the banknotes not issued within the borders of the state.

James McCulloch, who held the highest authority regarding the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank of the United States, refused to pay the tax. A lawsuit between the state and McCulloch began, which was initially filed before John James, and then before the Maryland Court of Appeals, eventually ending up in the Supreme Court.

The Court, after showing off the theory of Alexander Hamilton on the implicit powers that the Constitution granted to the Congress, affirmed the legitimacy of the federal government, its complete independence and its prevalence with respect to individual states. Then it ruled that although the constitution did not provide for it officially it was within the powers entrusted by the government and all states could not hinder its function, establishing in this way the predominance of federal laws over state laws.

Vacuous proof is used.

Step-by-step explanation:

Given:

Proposition p(n) :

"if n is a positive integer greater than 1, then n² > n"

To prove:

Prove the proposition p (0)

Solution:

Using the proposition p(n) the proposition p(0) becomes:

p(0) = "if 0 is a positive integer greater than 1, then 0² > 0"

The proposition that "0 is a positive integer greater than 1" is false

Since the premises "if 0 is a positive integer greater than 1" is false this means the overall proposition/ statement is true.

Thus this is the vacuous proof which states that:

if a premise p ("0 is a positive integer greater than 1") is false then the implication or conditional statement p->q ("if n is a positive integer greater than 1, then n² > n") is trivially true.

So in vacuous proof, the implication i.e."if n is a positive integer greater than 1, then n2 > n." is only true when the antecedent i.e. "0 is a positive integer greater than 1" cannot be satisfied.