Do you argue with the articles of confederation? why or why not

I have to agree

Explanation:

The representatives of the thirteen states agree to create a confederacy called the United States of America, in which each state maintains its own sovereignty and all rights to govern, except those rights specifically granted to Congress.

I do argue the Article of Confederation why because they failed at

Weaknesses

and another thing the Article of Confederation failed at is

Ultimately, the Articles of Confederation failed because they were crafted to keep the national government as weak as possible: There was no power to enforce laws. No judicial branch or national courts. Amendments needed to have a unanimous vote.

Explanation:

I hoped this helped not very smart at this

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.

answer; english speaking;