Congress enacted a statute that purported to ban all discrimination against African-Americans in any commercial transaction taking place within the United States. Would the statute most likely be held constitutional? A Yes, under Thirteenth Amendment provisions barring badges or incidents of slavery. B Yes, because the federal government has an important interest in furthering the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. C No, because Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause do not extend so far as the statute would require. D No, because commercial transactions are not among the privileges or immunities of national citizenship.

B. Yes, because the federal government has an important interest in furthering the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Explanation:

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment gives U. S. citizenship to people born or naturalized in the U. S, protects their privileges or immunities and guarantees due process of law and the equal protection of the laws with the purpose to make it illegal to discriminate against a person because of race.

Therefore, if Congress enacts a statute that purports to ban all discrimination against African-Americans in any commercial transaction within the United States, it does so to further the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that prohibits racial discrimination especially discrimination against African Americans which is a group that was widely discriminated for decades.