Answer:
Well, I answered your question before but this would not be the same from before :)
An amendment can be proposed by either a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a constitutional convention called by Congress at the request of the legislatures in two-thirds of the states. The constitutional convention method has never been used to propose an amendment.amendments are proposed by. Both houses of congress passing it by a 2/3 vote. 2/3 of state legislatures requested a national convention to make an amendment.amendments are ratified by. 3/4 of the state legislatures ratifying it. For a cloture: 16 senators must sponsor the bill.Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.One of the main reasons for the 1787 Convention was that the Articles of Confederation required the unanimous consent of all 13 states for the national government to take action. This system had proved unworkable, and the newly written Constitution sought to address this problem.
Hope that was helpful.Thank you!!!
The Answer is in fact D. After the attack on Pearl Harbor the U.S. declared war on the Axis Powers, not just Japan.
Both sophists and philosophers were well trained and highly educated, but the main difference was that a sophist taught others and they got paid for that. It is said that their own wealth was their only goal.
Philosophers, such as Socrates, refused to get paid.
Throughout history, the sophists have had a reputation as professionally amoral, . They would help people to attain any goal, regardless of what it was. They would take any case, promote any cause, and empower any person, if the money was right.
Philosophers, for the most part, have walked on the side of the angels. They may sometimes have had reputations as prolix and obscure, complex and abstract, out of touch, but they have, for the most part, seemed to be purer souls in their focus and work.
In other words, the sophists were much more concerned about how than about why. The philosophers have always been more cautious.
Answer:
ALHAJI ABUBAKAR TAFAWA BALEWA
Explanation:
