Why did Britain and France want the Suez Canal? |

On 26 July 1956, Nasser nationalised the canal, which prior to that was owned primarily by Britain and France. On 29 October, Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai. Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to cease fire, which was ignored. On 5 November, Britain and France landed paratroopers along the Suez Canal. Before the Egyptian forces were defeated, they had blocked the canal to all shipping by sinking 40 ships in the canal. It later became clear that Israel, France and Britain had conspired to plan out the invasion. The three allies had attained a number of their military objectives, but the canal was useless. Heavy political pressure from the United States and the USSR led to a withdrawal. U.S. president Dwight D. Eisenhower had strongly warned Britain not to invade; he threatened serious damage to the British financial system by selling the US government's pound sterling bonds. Historians conclude the crisis "signified the end of Great Britain's role as one of the world's major powers

Explanation:

during the 1920s the goal of the united states was not letting business collide or go down or even compete this was due to wwl

the united states constitution defines the structure of the national government and dictates the scope and limitation of its powers. the constitution is known as “the supreme law of the land” and all other laws are measured against it. the application of the articles and amendments of the constitution comprise constitutional law.

in addition to the united states constitution, each state has its own constitution and therefore, its own body of constitutional law as well. state constitutions resemble the federal constitution in that they outline the state government’s structure of legislative, executive and judicial branches as well as contain a bill of rights.

but there are various ways state constitutions differ from the federal constitution. often, state constitutions are much longer and more detailed than the federal constitution. state constitutions focus more on limiting rather than granting power since its general authority has already been established. as a result, the constitution of alabama is six hundred pages long whereas the federal constitution can be easily read in one sitting front to back.

the details in state constitutions are not particularly “constitutional” in nature. they often address topics unique to the state. the federal constitution can only be amended through a lengthy process designed to limit changes to this fundamental document. as a result, it has only been amended seventeen times since the adoption of the bill of rights in 1791.

state constitutions are more open to amendments. amendments can be proposed by legislature, a constitutional commission or citizens’ petition and can be accepted by referendum.   for example. the constitution of massachusetts has been amended one hundred and twenty times. the constitution of georgia has even been replaced altogether as many as ten times.