The States didnot want to give up their claims West of the Allegheny (Appalachain) Mountains. Also, ther was a limited Government
The first state to ratify the articles was Virginia, on December 16, 1777. However, some states refused to give up their claim to lands in the West, delaying the process for several years. Maryland was the last to ratify on March 1, 1781.
The Articles lasted from March 1, 1781, to March 4, 1789 after that the ratification process took place, and the new constitution still used today was set in place.
Democratic is a form of government by the people and for the people.
no, the Nazis believed in strengh, their philosophy was that if you wanted something then you should take it. They did use the democratic process to rise to power and to change the government into a one party system (after they failed to take power by force).
A codon that acts as a start signal for the synthesis of a polypeptide.
amend
This question is nebulously worded and can mean one of two questions: 1) Can an individual today change the words/paragraphs/articles of the Articles of Confederation? -- No. The Articles of Confederation is an historical document. 2) Were the Articles of Confederation, while in use, subject to an amendment process? -- Yes. The Articles could be amended provided that the amendment was passed in all of the State Legislatures.
Unlike the later United States Constitution, the Articles of Confederation required that all (then 13) states ratify the agreement before it could be put into effect. The ratification of the Articles of Confederation dragged on for over three years, stalled because many states refused to ratify it until specific conditions were met.
a. process of electing representatives to the Congress. b. three branches of the United States government. c. requirements for being president of the Congress. d. first national government of the United States.
Three states did not vote for the Articles of Confederation: Maryland, South Carolina, and New Jersey. These states either refused to sign or did not participate in the voting process. Ultimately, the Articles were ratified in 1781, but the lack of unanimous support highlighted the challenges of creating a cohesive national government.
The Articles of Confederation had several weaknesses. As a result, a new plan of government, the Constitution, was written to clear up the weaknesses. Under the Articles of Confederation, there were many things the federal government couldn't do. It couldn't tax, make trade treaties, resolve disputes between states, keep order, and pay its debts. To help solve these issues, the writers of the Constitution created a federal government with three branches. Each branch had distinct powers to carry out its responsibilities. Additionally, the government had the ability to create an army. This army could be used to keep order at home as well as fight wars with other countries if needed. The Articles of Confederation can't be criticized for being a weak government because it was set up to be a weak government. However, the Constitution was much better, in part because the writers of the Constitution learned from the past mistakes that were made. They also included an amendment process to correct future problems that might arise. The Constitution was written, in part, to correct the mistakes and resolve the issues that existed in the Articles of Confederation.
The Articles of Confederation had several weaknesses. As a result, a new plan of government, the Constitution, was written to clear up the weaknesses. Under the Articles of Confederation, there were many things the federal government couldn't do. It couldn't tax, make trade treaties, resolve disputes between states, keep order, and pay its debts. To help solve these issues, the writers of the Constitution created a federal government with three branches. Each branch had distinct powers to carry out its responsibilities. Additionally, the government had the ability to create an army. This army could be used to keep order at home as well as fight wars with other countries if needed. The Articles of Confederation can't be criticized for being a weak government because it was set up to be a weak government. However, the Constitution was much better, in part because the writers of the Constitution learned from the past mistakes that were made. They also included an amendment process to correct future problems that might arise. The Constitution was written, in part, to correct the mistakes and resolve the issues that existed in the Articles of Confederation.
The U.S. Constitution addressed a key weakness of the Articles of Confederation by establishing a stronger central government with the power to levy taxes and regulate trade. It also created a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. Additionally, the Constitution provided for a more structured framework for governance, including the establishment of a federal court system and a process for amending the Constitution itself.
The first three articles of the Constitution lay out how the government is to be organized. Each article deals with the setup of one of the branches of government.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was the important measure passed down by the Articles of Confederation that addressed slavery and established a process for statehood. It prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory and outlined a process for admitting new states to the Union.
For the Articles of Confederation to be ratified, they required approval from at least nine of the thirteen original states. This process involved extensive debates and negotiations among the states, addressing issues such as representation, taxation, and governance. The final ratification occurred on March 1, 1781, after Maryland, the last holdout, agreed to ratify the Articles, partly due to concerns over land claims by other states. The agreement marked a significant step in uniting the fledgling nation under a common framework of government.
a strong central government, They were the colonial leaders in the US who wanted a strong central government for the new country. They were opposed by the anti-federalists who wanted to maintain the power of the states, because they felt a strong central government would exert too much control over its citizens' lives.