Does the constitution address all of the concerns that arose during the time of articles of confederation? Why or why not?

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Although there are no options attached we can say the following.

I consider that the constitution addresses most of the concerns that arose during the time of articles of confederation?

Let's remember that the Articles of Confederation was the first Constitution of the United States. It had thirteen sections. Both the most relevant articles were:

2.- The sovereignty of the states that had their own powers in their territory.

4.- Free pass for American colonists when traveling across the states, except for criminals.

6.- Central government power to make international treaties and the power of the states to raise an army.

7.- The states decide their military leaders.  

8.- The states are the ones who could collect money through taxation. The central government needed money, it had to ask for it from the states.

This meant that the central government was week under the Articles of Confederation and Congress could not collect money through taxation. When the government needed money it had to ask for it from the states. It could not raise an army, either.

That is why delegates met at the Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1787. Federalists and Antifederalists debated on the new form of government for the country and created the Constitution.

Federalists supported a strong form of government. Antid¿federalists, not. For states to sign it, Antifederalists like Thomas Jefferson demanded to include many rights for the citizens and respect to the sovereignty of the states. That is why Federalists James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.

answer; i believe the best and correct answer is stronger bonds between the nations of africa;

freeborn women in ancient rome were citizens (cives), but could not vote or hold political office. because of their limited public role, women are named less frequently than men by roman historians. but while roman women held no direct political power, those from wealthy or powerful families could and did exert influence through private negotiations. exceptional women who left an undeniable mark on history range from lucretia and claudia quinta, whose stories took on mythic significance; fierce republican-era women such as cornelia, mother of the gracchi, and fulvia, who commanded an army and issued coins bearing her image; women of the julio-claudian dynasty, most prominently livia (58 bc-ad 29), who contributed to the formation of imperial mores; and the empress helena (c.250–330 ad), a driving force in promoting christianity.

women in the ancient greek world had few rights in comparison to male citizens. unable to vote, own land, or inherit, a woman’s place was in the home and her purpose in life was the rearing of children. this, though, is a general description, and when considering the role of women in ancient greece one should remember that information regarding specific city-states is often lacking, is almost always from male authors, and only in athens can their status and role be described in any great detail. neither are we sure of the practical and everyday application of the rules and laws that have survived from antiquity. we do know that spartan women were treated somewhat differently than in other states. for example, they had to do physical training like men, were permitted to own land, and could drink wine.