10. Alin sa mga sumusunod ang ipinangako ng Pamahalang Sibil sa pamumuno ni Gobernador Taft?
A. Pagpapahalaga ng mga karapatang sibil at pagsasanay sa malayang
pamamahala sa sarili.
B. Pagpaparami ng magsasaka
C. Pagpapadami ng sundalong Pilipino
D. Pagbibigay ng libreng pabahay​

the answer is catholics

the articles of confederation only set up the continental congress at the federal level. there were no executive or judicial branches except within the states. the states were allowed to keep every right that was not specifically given to congress. the bonding of the states was through a 'firm league of friendship' that best served as a defense agreement against invasion. states were not allowed to use taxes as a way to discourage treaties, and states were extremely limited in their dealings with foreign nations.

not many historians today talk about the strengths of the articles of confederation, likely because of how unpopular the document quickly became. the articles did set the legislative body, congress, as the highest power in the nation because of the fear of monarchy. congress had the sole power to declare war, assign treaties, entertain foreign relations, and operate post offices. disputes between states and territorial issues were to be brought to congress. the document also stipulated that canada was allowed to enter the union if they desired.

there were more weaknesses than strengths under the articles of confederation. the lack of power given to the continental congress strangled the federal government. the articles gave congress the power to pass laws but no power to enforce those laws. if a state did not support a federal law, that state could simply ignore it. congress had no power to levy taxes or regulate trade. without a federal court system or executive leader, there would be no way to enforce these laws, either. amending the articles of confederation would also require a unanimous decision, which would be extremely difficult.

because everyone tends to get their feelings hurt if they don't agree with something someone is doing and vice versa. it's a major issue that needs to be dealt with, especially in the christian society. everyone thinks that christians hate gay people, because it is a sin, and christians "just hate everyone who sins and every one is going to hell for sinning"(saying that all in a sarcastic tone but i'm just going to go ahead and tell you why everything with that type of view on christians is wrong.

#1. christians do not hate gay people. and if they do, then that is their own personal problem. christians are not supposed to hate anyone. if you hate a neighbor (or any person basically), then that is as if you are hating jesus.

#2. being gay is in fact a sin according to the holy bible. it is in genesis. and no, the fact that it is a sin, does not mean that god hates you. he is grieved that a person is sinning against his word, but he still loves that person. in fact, christians are supposed to love everyone. we are supposed to love our enemies, but hate the sin they are doing. we love you and respect you, but we do not agree with every decision you make, is basically what i'm trying to say.

hope this you ! (: