Why were the Articles of Confederation replaced by the United States Constitution? Question 11 options:

The parliamentary system set up by the Articles of Confederation established a government too much like England’s, against which the country had just fought a war.

The tax laws enacted under the Articles of Confederation favored wealthy landowners, which angered members of the merchant class, so new laws had to be written.

The weak national government established by the Articles of Confederation made passing and enforcing laws, collecting tax money, and regulating trade either difficult or impossible, so major changes were necessary.

The court system created by the Articles of Confederation did not allow for state courts, and people soon realized that the federal government could not resolve legal disputes related to state laws.

hello!

according to the passage the most suitable options are two. the first one is "by leading the aef to victory in several key battles" like the battle of saint- mihiel and the battle of cantigny mentioned in the passage you copied here. the second one is "by the aef and allied forces defeat germany" since the passage says that his army destroy the german resistance in the meuse- argonne offensive. and also, "by insisting that the aef operate as an independent force".

hope this

formulating the initial idea for the policy

answer is c.

i believe the correct answer is b.

during the debate over his landmark energy policy proposal, president jimmy carter failed to consult one of the most powerful senators, louisiana’s russell long, who would have a big say over whether the legislation moved through the upper chamber. this was classic carter. with a strong distaste for congressional politics, the president simply refused to do what most other presidents would consider routine, such as courting key senators. long became so irate with the president that when he was finally invited to a white house dinner, he stood up to ask a question and, before doing so, proceeded to sarcastically introduce himself: “i’m russell long, chairman of the senate finance committee.”

this interaction is a revealing moment in stuart e. eizenstat’s fascinating new history of carter’s presidency. the former peanut farmer from georgia was a president who, according to conventional wisdom, didn’t care much for party politics; nonetheless, in eizenstat’s view, carter’s legacy on domestic and foreign policy has been vastly underappreciated. the author paints carter as a “bold and determined” leader who bravely attacked the challenges of his time. eizenstat goes so far as to argue that carter might very well be the most successful one-term president in american history.