Why was the decision to assign jurisdiction over controversies between citizens of different states to the supreme court significant? a. it meant that the state courts, rather than the federal judiciary, would ultimately become the primary venue for resolving disputes. b. it meant that the federal judiciary, rather than the state courts, would ultimately become the primary venue for resolving disputes. c. it meant that courts at both the state and federal levels would become irrelevant to the operating of the american political system. d. it meant that the state courts would be allowed to use the power of judicial review on cases involving economic disputes.

It meant that the federal judiciary, rather than the state courts, would ultimately become the primary venue for resolving disputes.

Explanation:

The decision to assign jurisdiction over controversies between citizens of different states to the Supreme Court meant that the federal judiciary, rather than the state courts, would ultimately become the primary venue for resolving disputes.

i think it can have both positive and negative effects on businesses.

for example:

lets say you own a small business and taxes go up 4% that means it is going to cost your business more money to buy product to sell. but at the same time you make more money from the tax rise.

that is my theory.

yes, obviously. that violates r@pe and p*dophilia laws, which are some pretty serious laws if you ask me.