The Articles of Confederation was the first system of government utilized by the United States.  The people who created this system were most likely fearful of a strong central government do to oppression felt by man from the British government.  This system did not have a strong executive authority which is reflected of attitudes in the nation at this time.

Home rule was, essentially, the British policy of purposeful neglect. In other words, in the ‘middle-years’ of colonial days (that is, a few years after Jamestown until around the end of the Seven Years War/French and Indian War), Britain let the colonies pretty much do as they pleased. The colonies, in reality, had it pretty good—on top of basically ruling themselves: they didn’t pay taxes, they had one of the largest economies in the world to sell crops and goods to, and they had the largest military in the world to protect them.

To put it succinctly, the colonies got used to “ruling” themselves, and Britain got used to enjoying the “good” of colonies without having to account for the “bad.” Britain, in other words, enjoyed the advantages of having colonies (a default trade partner, for example) without being forced to expend money to protect the colonies.

Remember:Even though home rule allowed for autonomy, the colonies were still dependent on Britain. Moreover, the Brits still appointed colonial “rulers” such as governors and judges. 

Hopefully you’ve guessed that free riding is a collective action problem. This is actually the easiest one to remember because nearly everyone has done a group project at one point in their lives. Remember that one kid who did absolutely NOTHING while you slaved away on that group project? He’s a free rider. He is benefitting from your hard work and diligence while contributing nothing to the overall endeavor. Even though he contributed 0%, he still gets 100% of whatever grade you earn.

Free riding was actually very prevalent in the early days of the USA, especially during the Articles of Confederation. States which contributed nothing (monetarily or otherwise) still benefitted from being in a union with the other states. The Constitution sought to address this, among other things.

This is a trick question. There isn’t really a difference between the 7 Years War/F&I War. Technically speaking, the French and Indian War is simply the North American theatre of the 7 Years War.

To explain slightly further, when scholars refer to war “theaters” it generally means a battle or conflict which is part of the overall war, but is in a different geological location. Take World War II, for example: the “European Theatre” clearly includes conflicts and battles within Europe; the “Pacific Asian Theatre” obviously includes conflicts and battles in Japan, for example. Both, however, are part of WWII. 

Regardless, the War is responsible for the Brits beginning to do away with "home rule" and start exercising power over the colonies. The first power exercised, of course, was the power to tax. This infuriated the colonists ("no taxation without representation") and was one of the major sparks leading to the Revolution.

NY is the correct answer. Essentially, NY fought ratification because the Anti-Federalist governor, George Clinton, stood to lose a massive amount of political influence and power if NY joined the union. Remember: under the AoC states were MUCH more powerful than the ‘central’ government, thus making governors close to modern-day presidents in their own right. Moreover, because NY was already a hub for commerce, it was functioning well (relative to the other states in the AoC, many of which were floundering).

For that reason, and several others, the founders knew that they needed NY to join, if the Constitution were to actually work. So Madison and the others focused their pen—and attention—on NY and began writing the Federalist Papers.

Factions were more politically prevalent during ratification than they are now, only because now we have well-recognized political parties that have more or less subsumed factions. At any rate, factions were essentially competing interests—this is often difficult to wrap your mind around, so the easiest way to envision it is this: would a northern merchant and a southern planter have the same interests? How about a merchant and an artisan? An artisan and an unskilled laborer? A planter and a plantation owner? All of these would belong to different “factions” in a sense, because they have different interests. The anti-federalists attempted to stir up fear by saying “well, what if ONE of those factions got control of the government! We’d be toast!” (Do you see why? What’s good for a planter is not necessarily good for a merchant, and vice versa).

The Constitution contains both positive and negative rights.  Positive rights act positively to ensure economic and social entitlements.  Negative rights on the other hand place constitutional limitations on government interference with an individual's right.  These rights make sure that people can enjoy their political and civil liberties with minimal government interference.

The necessary and proper clause states that Congress has the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers. Any and all necessary and proper laws must be implemented in order to achieve constitutional results.

Throughout the course of the American Revolution, the colonists clung tightly to their dominant aim: the restoration of their rights and a return to their way of life before Great Britain’s abuses and the War. This goal was expressed most eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, in which the Founders gave voice to the colonists’ frustrations over the increasingly worsening pattern of disregard, violation, and presumption forced upon them by King George III and Parliament. In truth, many of the colonists had been reluctant to formally separate from England at first, believing instead that the King might be persuaded to acknowledge his government’s wrongdoings and restore them a respected position, with political and economic freedoms, within his Empire. But after the King and Parliament both summarily rejected this prospect and, indeed, continued to abuse the American colonies even further, the colonists knew that their treasured rights and laissez-faire lifestyle could only be won back through revolt. In this manner, the Revolution was actually rather conservative (as far as uprisings go), because the colonists did not desire radical or wide-sweeping changes.

Shays’ Rebellion, which broke out in 1786, was a collection of small armed uprisings by Massachusetts farmers, coordinated by ex-Revolutionary War Captain Daniel Shays. Shays and his fellow rebels were indebted farmers whose lands had been confiscated by creditors under Massachusetts’ inequitable debtor laws. Desperate to keep their lands, Shays and his men attacked several courthouses, preventing judges from finalizing foreclosure proceedings and generally inspiring other similarly disadvantaged farmers in other states to do the same. The government of Massachusetts was incapable of stopping the Rebellion, which was popular with many of the state’s citizens. In these dire straits, Massachusetts appealed to Congress for aid, but under the Articles, Congress was unable to call together a militia, let alone gather the necessary supplies and funds to sponsor such a force. Hampered by the Articles, Congress was forced to stand aside and watch the Rebellion proceed. Eventually, the Rebellion was halted by a militia put together by a private force funded by Massachusetts’ wealthy citizens, but the interval of chaos that had ensued, in which Shays and his rebels ran about unchecked, convinced many people across the new nation that the Articles of Confederation were seriously flawed and needed to be amended as soon as possible.