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
Alex_Xolod [135]
3 years ago
8

What did the Virginia Plan propose? Text to speech A:A. Two houses of Congress with representation based on state population B:B

. One house of Congress with equal representation from each state C:C. An upper house of Congress with equal representation from each state D:D. A lower house of Congress with equal representation from each state
History
2 answers:
e-lub [12.9K]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

YOU WROTE THE WRONG ANSWER!!!!

Lapatulllka [165]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

The right option is:

A. Two houses of Congress with representation based on state population .

Explanation:

The plan was written by James Madison at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The plan reflected the interests of Virginia, which was the most populated state. It wanted representation in the federal legislature based on population and wealth. During the debates, New Jersey proposed an alternative plan. The Virginia Plan is historical because it was the first document that gave suggestions for a separation of powers among the branches of the US government.

You might be interested in
Who suggested that a sneer retains elements of baring one's teeth so as to threaten predators?
Luden [163]

A. Charles Darwin

Darwin suggested that a sneer retains elements of baring one's teeth so as to threaten predators.

7 0
3 years ago
Was the united state correct 1945 when it became the first nation to use atomic weapons against japan to end world war 2 or was
Dominik [7]

Answer:

It was a morally wrong decision to drop the atomic bombs.

Explanation:

This is a heavily debated opinion-based question where you can go both ways. In my personal opinion, I personally argue that it was morally wrong for the US to use atomic weapons on Japan. Below is my reasoning.

1. Japan had already expressed the desire to surrender previous to the dropping of the atomic bombs, meaning that they were not a military necessity.

Prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs, Japan had already expressed the desire to surrender under the single condition that their emperor would not be harmed. (This was mainly due to cultural reasons that made the emperor a particularly important figure) Instead of accepting, the United States instead decided to fight for unconditional surrender. While they did achieve that in the end, they ended up not harming the emperor anyway, meaning that they could have just accepted Japan's surrender in my personal opinion. Moreover, this desire disproves the argument that the decision to drop the bomb was a military necessity and many contribute Japan's surrender more so to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria which meant Japan now had to fight a two-front war.

2. Atomic weapons are a form of indiscriminite killing.

Atomic weapons don't have eyes. They can't tell the difference between the military and civilians. Thousands of women and children were killed that had no involvement in the war. It is a war crime to intentionally target civilians, so why would atomic weapons be ethically acceptable? While the US did drop leaflets to warn civilians prior to the attacks, this act is not enough, and it cannot be expected for millions to flee thier homes.

3. The government may have been considering diplomatic reasons rather than solely ending the war.

If the US was really after a speedy end to the end of the war, there could have been many other ways to go about it. They could have continued to firebomb cities or accept conditional surrender. Some have argued that the diplomatic effects that came with it such as scaring the Soviets and proving US dominance were also in policymakers' minds. If the US had not been victorious in World War II, several important members of the government would have likely been tried as war criminals.

The Counter Argument:

Of course, there is also a qualified opposing view when it comes to this. It is perfectly valid to argue that the bomb was necessary for ending the war: as it is impossible to know the "what ifs" had history not happened the way it did. It is undeniable that the atomic bomb likely saved thousands of American lives if the war would have continued, and the war did ultimately come to an end a couple of days after the atomic bombs. There also is not enough evidence as to what exactly was the reason the Japanese unconditionally surrendered: it could have been Manchuria or the atomic bomb, both, or even other reasons entirely. Lastly, the general public did approve of the bombings at the time.

In recent years, the public have slowly become more critical of the bombings, although it remains a weighted moral debate.

Note: These are my personal views and this does explicitly represent the views of anyone else. Please let me know if you have any questions :)

8 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Do Tom& lily do the right things in not going back to the cottage
IgorLugansk [536]
I believe so, if you’re talking about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Leaving helped them to let go of their past and start fresh.
4 0
3 years ago
"...it is known that there are Japanese residents of California who have sought to aid the Japanese enemy by way of communicatin
IrinaVladis [17]

Answer:

restrict the civil liberties of Japanese Americans

Explanation:

According to my research on World War 2, I can say that based on the information provided within the question it helped influence president Franklin D. Roosevelt to restrict the civil liberties of Japanese Americans. This made life extremely difficult for Japanese American expats who in term suffered discrimination, loss of liberty, loss of property and personal humiliation because of this.

I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.

5 0
3 years ago
What features of the court made it undemocratic?
Lina20 [59]

Answer:

The main feature is that the Justices are not elected by the people.

Explanation:

The US Supreme Court Justices are not elected democratically by the people but they are instead nominated by the President and then after their nomination confirmed the the US Senate. Furthermore, they are serving indefinitely as long as they uphold the good behavior and can cast down laws passed as unconstitutional by the officially elected representatives.

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What was the purpose of the poll tax?
    11·2 answers
  • Name two critical military advantages the win had over other kingdoms
    10·1 answer
  • Which of the following were contributions of Greek civilization to Western political thought? Select all that apply.
    13·2 answers
  • What role did Great Britain play in India's 5 of religious tension?
    11·1 answer
  • Name four arcas these trade routes went to that are outside the boundaries of this map.​
    13·1 answer
  • What were the reasons for the fall of the Roman
    14·1 answer
  • What were the outcomes for Native Americans when the war ended? Evaluate the behavior of the British towards the native American
    8·1 answer
  • Who did NOT want labor unions to
    6·2 answers
  • What actions did president grant take after the Louisiana state capitol was take over by white supremacist
    15·1 answer
  • State three problems associated with the use of moderntelecommunication​
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!