The Articles of Confederation were far too weak to meet the needs of the newly created United States because of the massive decentralization the Articles contained.
They did not give the government any right to tax the people, and had to ask the states for taxes, and the states were not keen to pay them unless it benefited them. Often found were states not contributing to the pay of the Continental Army because it was not in their territory and defending them. This was also the reason Valley Forge was a disastrous winter for the Continental Army.
The Constitution fixed this by mandating budgets and making sure the states did in fact pay dues to the Gov't, later amended with (the supposed temporary) Federal income tax, starting after The Great War.
The other big failure is the lack of a requirement delegates be there, and the fact it requires every state to vote yes, an amendment to let the Confederation place import taxes to help pay the army was a washed failure because Rhode Island feared having their economy impacted horribly as they were so small they only had trade.
The New Constitution fixed this by making it so 3/4 of the states had to vote Aye to an amendment to the Constitution itself, and made the Federal Government itself handle passes legislation at it's own level with a majority rules, rather than all.
A four episode series from Extra History delve with a good amount of detail as to the Articles' other short comings, and what I elaborated on. Would strongly recommend a watch: https://youtu.be/C6rHSiN0vKk
<span><span>IT IS an awful lot of rubbish. Since 1960 the amount of municipal waste being collected in America has nearly tripled, reaching 245m tonnes in 2005. According to European Union statistics, the amount of municipal waste produced in western Europe increased by 23% between 1995 and 2003, to reach 577kg per person. (So much for the plan to reduce waste per person to 300kg by 2000.) As the volume of waste has increased, so have recycling efforts. In 1980 America recycled only 9.6% of its municipal rubbish; today the rate stands at 32%. A similar trend can be seen in Europe, where some countries, such as Austria and the Netherlands, now recycle 60% or more of their municipal waste. Britain's recycling rate, at 27%, is low, but it is improving fast, having nearly doubled in the past three years.Even so, when a city introduces a kerbside recycling programme, the sight of all those recycling lorries trundling around can raise doubts about whether the collection and transportation of waste materials requires more energy than it saves. We are constantly being asked: Is recycling worth doing on environmental grounds? says Julian Parfitt, principal analyst at Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a non-profit British company that encourages recycling and develops markets for recycled materials.Studies that look at the entire life cycle of a particular material can shed light on this question in a particular case, but WRAP decided to take a broader look. It asked the Technical University of Denmark and the Danish Topic Centre on Waste to conduct a review of 55 life-cycle analyses, all of which were selected because of their rigorous methodology. The researchers then looked at more than 200 scenarios, comparing the impact of recycling with that of burying or burning particular types of waste material. They found that in 83% of all scenarios that included recycling, it was indeed better for the environment.Based on this study, WRAP calculated that Britain's recycling efforts reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions by 10m-15m tonnes per year. That is equivalent to a 10% reduction in Britain's annual carbon-dioxide emissions from transport, or roughly equivalent to taking 3.5m cars off the roads. Similarly, America's Environmental Protection Agency estimates that recycling reduced the country's carbon emissions by 49m tonnes in 2005.Recycling has many other benefits, too. It conserves natural resources. It also reduces the amount of waste that is buried or burnt, hardly ideal ways to get rid of the stuff. (Landfills take up valuable space and emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas; and although incinerators are not as polluting as they once were, they still produce noxious emissions, so people dislike having them around.) But perhaps the most valuable benefit of recycling is the saving in energy and the reduction in greenhouse gases and pollution that result when scrap materials are substituted for virgin feedstock. If you can use recycled materials, you don't have to mine ores, cut trees and drill for oil as much,says Jeffrey Morris of Sound Resource Management, a consulting firm based in Olympia, Washington.Extracting metals from ore, in particular, is extremely energy-intensive. Recycling aluminium, for example, can reduce energy consumption by as much as 95%. Savings for other materials are lower but still substantial: about 70% for plastics, 60% for steel, 40% for paper and 30% for glass. Recycling also reduces emissions of pollutants that can cause smog, acid rain and the contamination of waterways.</span></span>
The people in the Byzantine Empire who disagreed with the position being argued with the quoted word would be called the <u>Iconoclasts</u>.
<h3>Who are the
Iconoclasts?</h3>
Basically, an Iconoclasm means “an image breaking” and refers to a recurring historical impulse to destroy images for religious or political reasons.
For instance, in ancient Egypt, the carved visages of some pharaohs were obliterated by their successors and during the French Revolution, the images of kings were defaced.
Hence, the people in the Byzantine Empire who disagreed with the position being argued with the quoted word "<em>Those fall into the same blasphemy who venerate the image, and the same woe rests upon both.</em>" would be called the <u>Iconoclasts</u>.
Therefore, the Option B is correct.
Read more about Iconoclasts
brainly.com/question/25758528
#SPJ1
The correct answer is A
Citizenship
Roman citizenship was an important aspect of the social structure of the Roman republic.It ensured that a person could vote or be voted for, and could also amass wealth and influence. Roman citizens were also treated fairly in the judicial system.
