1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
LenaWriter [7]
3 years ago
8

What was the federalist position on the adoption of the constitution?

Social Studies
1 answer:
const2013 [10]3 years ago
5 0
The federalist position on the adoption of the Constitution was the argument of the difficulties facing republic which could be overcome only by the new government based on the Constitution.
You might be interested in
Were the first colonists in the chesapeake region ignorant, lazy and unambitious?
Daniel [21]

Not only were the initial colonists in the Chesapeake region lazy and unambitious but their aspirations were also hindered before they even got started. A  single plant provided an answer to these issues. However, the colonists eventually ran into a lot of issues as a result of this cash crop.

<h3>Who are Colonists?</h3>

The practice of colonialism involves one country assuming complete or partial political control over another and settling there with settlers in order to take advantage of that country's resources and economy. It might be challenging to tell colonialism from imperialism because both involve the political and economic dominance of a dominating country over a weak territory. From the dawn of time until the beginning of the 20th century, strong nations fought openly for control of new territories through colonialism. By the time World War I broke out in 1914, nearly every continent had been colonized by European nations. Although colonialism is not as actively implemented as it once was, there is evidence that it still has influence in the modern world.

Thus, yes the colonists in the Chesapeake region were lazy and ignorant.

For more information on Chesapeake, refer to the given link:

brainly.com/question/5231025

#SPJ4

4 0
1 year ago
CSOD Stone Coast Academy
ohaa [14]

Answer:

D. Located in a singles' building

Explanation:

The Fair Housing Act is a law that prevents homeowners from making it difficult or impossible to rent or buy a home because of racist, xenophobic and homophobic concepts among other forms of discrimination. One of the forms of discrimination that this law prohibits is about family status that informs what family situation an individual is in. In this case, the option "Located in a singles' building" provides a type of violation of this law, since this option generalizes a type of family status, which can cause discrimination.

5 0
3 years ago
Why is it essential to have basic information about the foreign employment​
Anton [14]
<h2><em><u>Question:</u></em></h2>

<em>→</em><em>W</em><em>hy is it essential to have basic information about the foreign employment</em><em>?</em>

<h2><em><u>Answer:</u></em></h2>

  • <em>Because,</em><em> </em><em>Foreign employment reduces the unemployment problem of a country. It may help to develop international relations with other countries.</em>
<h2><em><u>Explanation:</u></em></h2>

<em>→</em><em>because the country has to do labour contract with other countries and embassies has to be established there.</em>

<em>#</em><em>B</em><em>r</em><em>a</em><em>i</em><em>n</em><em>l</em><em>i</em><em>e</em><em>s</em><em>t</em><em>B</em><em>u</em><em>n</em><em>c</em><em>h</em>

5 0
2 years ago
A city-states bans women
Andreyy89

Answer:

This is an example of a patriarchal society. Women had no freedom at the time and still are not treated equally. They could not hold a job besides being a housewife andd taking care of the kids. They could not leave the house. Women are still not treated the same and are payed less. They are considered a minority. Hope this helps!

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
A state statute provides: "Any merchant desiring to sell within this state any product or goods manufactured outside of the Unit
Naddika [18.5K]

Answer:The Statute is an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause.

Explanation:The Statute is an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause. Regulation of foreign commerce is exclusively a federal power because of the need for the federal government to speak with one voice when regulating commercial relations with foreign governments. The existence of legitimate state interests underlying state legislation will not justify state regulation of foreign commerce. The state statute, in imposing requirements for a license costing $50 and for a clear marking of goods as being from a foreign country, clearly is an attempt by the state to restrict or even eliminate the flow of such goods in foreign commerce. Thus, the statute is unconstitutional.

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Did the Marshall Plan aid any Communist countries? If so, which ones were they.
    10·1 answer
  • Using the sociological perspective, we see that social stratification
    9·1 answer
  • Explain how critical thinking can be used to analyze a philosophical issue.
    6·1 answer
  • Granny mae claims that her pies make a nutritious breakfast because the pies contain fruit. a good scientist should i. question
    10·1 answer
  • Dr. Randazza shows participants a stylized map of a fictitious city. The map includes landmarks, such as a post office, a librar
    12·1 answer
  • Can someone help me plz!!! Like actually :)
    13·2 answers
  • What happens during sentencing in a criminal court case? The lawyers summarize the facts and explain what they intend to prove.
    13·2 answers
  • I need help labeling some of these ;-;
    14·1 answer
  • Why was the Great Awakening a social equalizer?
    13·2 answers
  • Interviews on how women were treated back then​
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!