Match each outcome with a weakness of the Articles of Confederation.

Explanation:

1. Congress was not given any power to tax the people

No taxes=no money to run the country

2. Congress had no power to enforce its own laws in the states

No enforcement=people in various states doing what they want

3. Congress could not make states follow trade agreements with other nations

Bad trading relations with other counties = no international trade

4. Congress could not regulate trade between the states.

High trading taxes between states = difficulty trading goods = slow business = lost jobs

5. Citizens in states thought their property rights were being violated

Violated property rights = need for national government to check the states

6. There was no national court system

No national court system = different systems by state = confusion in the justice system Interstate issues would have no courts to go to on the federal level No means of checking the laws of the legislature

7. There was no executive branch for the central government

This means there was no President or party responsible for enforcing laws; no authority behind the laws There was no figure head for the government No means of checking the policies created by the legislature (what happens when all power is in one branch of government?)

8. It required a unanimous vote to make changes to the Articles

This made it very difficult to make any changes to the Articles

9. Many farmers lost their farms and homes; some were even put in prison As a result, local farmers, led by Daniel Shays decided to rebel by shutting down the courts using force - they even raided a federal arsenal to take weapons for their rebellion

The purpose of this meeting was "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation"...but they ended up creating a new U.S. Constitution.

1- in bradbury's  fahrenheit 451, all books are banned and burned upon discovery. in the nazi germany, books considered to be subversive to the regime would be burned to keep the population from generating ideologies that could challenge nazism.

2- was bradbury correct in his literal interpretation of  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.”? in some way, yes. when knowledge is not only limited, but also controlled, the people tied to it are led to their demise. just like in the novel, people in nazi germany who owned  subversive books were punished not only by the burning of their property, but also by the discrimination that followed after such a public form of consequence. if a person was seen being confiscated  subversive  books, they may be considered as an ally to the jews, which meant pretty much the same as being the enemy back then. because of the extreme exclusion and suffering that followed this punishment, it's almost like dying a slow death.

in this way, the phrase  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.” is both literal and figurative.

explanation:

mark brainliest and have a great day!