Congress adopted a law granting a state university $2.5 million to study the properties of snowflakes. An outraged taxpayer filed suit to challenge the appropriation. Which of the following is the best argument against this challenge? a. The legislation is a valid exercise of the federal taxing and spending powers.
b. The federal court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin such expenditures voted by Congress, under the doctrine of separation of powers.
c. The taxpayer lacks standing to challenge the expenditure.
d. There is no diversity in this suit because the spending appropriation being challenged is federal, and the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States.

CThe taxpayer lacks standing to challenge the expenditure.

DThere is no diversity in this suit because the spending appropriation being challenged is federal, and the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States.

Explanation:

The taxpayer doesn’t have the right to challenge any expenditure by the Congress as they represent a majority of the people already which means majority of the people are in support of the appropriation.

There is also no diversity in this suit because the spending appropriation being challenged is federal, and the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States.

question - in 1827, john walker, a druggist in a small english town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. the druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. it is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. although walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. it could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. in a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. the match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. it would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. this was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar. according the paragraph what was the benefit of the new phosphorus match? it burst into flame when rubbed on sandpaper. it was made by mixing chemicals. it could be ignited on any dry surface. it threw fire in all directions.

answer - matches required natural chemicals

permafrost layer, it exists beneath a layer of soil, rock or sediment.