The supreme court sided with filburn in the case.

that statement is false

Explanation:

At that time, the government created a policy to limit maximum products that can be produced by farmers in order to protect the price in the market. Filburn argue that the government had no power to do that to him and other farmers. The court stated that since the government had the right to regulate commerce, setting up maximum product quota also falls under the government's responsibility.

answer; i believe its jutland peninsula and scandinavian peninsula;

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )