Here is the other half thank u

the answer is lower nubia. plz mark brainliest i am trying to improve rank.

question: write a report analyzing through articles of confederation.

answer: the articles of confederation the united states constitution was written when the people feared strong government the new nation needed some kind of organization to hold states together to them fend off future attacks and make a stronger support system through the states and people the states bonded through a friendship that best served as a defense against a invasion and states were not allowed to use taxes as a way to discourage treaties, and states were extremely limited in their dealings with foreign nations the strengths were that the congress has the highest power in the nation because of   fear of monarchy congress had the sole power to declare war and assign treaties disputes between states and territorial issues were to be brought to congress and weaknesses were the lack of power given to congress the articles gave congress the power to pass laws but no power to enforce those laws if a state did not support a federal law that state could simply ignore it congress had no power to levy taxes or regulate trade.

explanation: so like every argument they have strengths and weaknesses but in this case there were more weaknesses but they managed o get through it and make an agreement

question answered by

(jacemorris04)

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is