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
Pavlova-9 [17]
3 years ago
14

How many of the thirteen states needed to approve a law before it could be passed, under the Articles of Confederation?

History
2 answers:
Gnesinka [82]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

9 of the thirteen

Explanation:

The Articles of Confederation called states that the approval of the states to change or amend the Articles, and for the approval by 9 of the 13 states to pass all major laws.

ella [17]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

At least 9 out of the 13 states needed to approve a law before it could be pass from the congress.

Explanation:

  • All states agree to send the delegates to Congress to vote on law or proposal.
  • Congress could pass the laws although at least 9 out of the 13 states had to approve the law before it could pass and become the law.
  • Congress could not levy or collect taxes, the state has control over the taxes.
  • Congress had the right to declare war, appoint military officers and can control and create coin money.

You might be interested in
What was the job of the Roman Senate
sergejj [24]

Answer:

The job of the Roman Senate was to set rules, declare war, hold peace camps, and create regulate the emperor (when the emperor was instituted).

~

3 0
2 years ago
Sponsoring the bill means you must pay the Senator. <br><br> TRUE<br> FALSE
Firdavs [7]
I believe that the answer is False


4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
In the middle of the 19th century, nationalism placed stress on the unity of empires. Which of the following nations was a direc
DENIUS [597]
I believe the answer is D or C I’m not super sure though.
3 0
2 years ago
PLEASE ANSWER THESE THREE QUESTIONS THERE 62 POINTS!!!
enot [183]

Answer:

Well it has to do with the Amendments, the first Amendment which talks about due process and rights would be the 5th Amendment which guarantees your Miranda Rights (Miranda vs. Arizona) This is the first step. The Miranda Rights is what you see in those cop movies where the police say “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used in court. You have the right to an attorney. If you can’t get one we will provide you one....” or something close to those lines.

The other Amendment which talks about due process and protection is 14th Amendment which states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Section. 2.

There is also something about a speedy and fair trial.

So yes the answer to your question is that guarantees your constitutional rights because we have Amendments for these. All Americans have the right to a fair, speedy trial. And no one is guilty with a claim against them—-this is why it’s known as Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

The 5th Amendment is quoted like this: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

PS. The reason why the 5th Amendment is known as Miranda rights is Because Mr. Miranda was in trouble because a sex crime but he found that the cops didn’t read him his rights when they arrested him

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which historical term describes the specific primary and secondary sources that historians use to support their claims
loris [4]
Historical evidence, Would be used to describe the specific primary and secondary sources that historians use to support their claims, since these sources provide other facts.
7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • This can be inferred about consumer spending in the late 1920s
    8·2 answers
  • Why is the world round?​
    12·1 answer
  • Read the passage. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments… the representation of the people in the legislatu
    6·2 answers
  • How was the war front different for the united states compared to its allies
    12·2 answers
  • What are some social similarities between classical greece and rome
    6·1 answer
  • Which steps did the Hoover administration take to fight the early challenges of the Great Depression?
    11·1 answer
  • A rich landowner or noble
    13·2 answers
  • WILL MARK BRAINLIEST URGENT!!!!!!
    6·1 answer
  • What kinds of perspectives might Sacagawea have had that were different from the other members of the Lewis and Clark expedition
    12·1 answer
  • Hey peeps this is a doc about me you will have to ask for access and then ill let you in
    6·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!