Article 5 of the United States Constitution is concerned with establishing the process by which amendments can be proposed and ratified to alter the laws in the Constitution. An amendment, according to the Constitution, can be adopted and sent to the states for approval in one of the following ways: a two-thirds majority of the Senate and House; a two-thirds vote in a national convention of the states. To become part of the Constitution, it must then be passed by three-fourths of the states at a state ratifying convention.

The Connecticut Compromise was part of the debate on the ratification of the Constitution and the construction of the new Legislative Branch. The Compromise created a bicameral legislature in the United States with a lower and an upper house. The lower house would have proportional representation for each state based on its population, whereas the upper house would have an equal number of representatives for each state. The lower house was called The House of Representatives and the upper house was called The Senate.

The New Jersey Plan, as opposed to the Virginia Plan, called for a creation of a unicameral legislature in which each state has one vote to use in the enactment of laws. The Virginia Plan wanted proportional representation so that states with a greater population would have a greater say in the direction of the country. Logically it follows that the smaller states would have been much more likely to support the New Jersey plan. California was not a state at the time of this debate, and New York, Virginia, and North Carolina were three of the most populous states in the union. So the correct answer is Delaware.

This is a slightly tricky question purely based off of the competing answers. The Connecticut (or Great) Compromise essentially took elements of the Virginia Plan and elements of the New Jersey Plan, and smashed them together.

The Virginia Plan advocated, among other things, a bicameral legislature of which both chambers would be apportioned based off of population. The lower chamber would be elected by the people of each state, and then the upper chamber would be selected through a two-step process: (1) each state legislature would nominate candidates and (2) the lower chamber would elect the upper chamber from the list generated by the lower. This arrangement favored big states, as it was based purely off of population (remember: at the time, VA was considered a large state, population-wise).

The New Jersey Plan, on the other hand, took a rather dim view of the whole apportionment-by-population thing, and essentially advocated for a unicameral legislature where each state was given an equal number of delegates, regardless of size (essentially, it was a reaffirmation of the Articles of Confederation, just with some tweaks here and there).

The Great Compromise took elements of both to form the government that we have today, as follows: the lower chamber (the House) was to be apportioned based off of the population of each of the states (VA Plan), and the upper chamber (the Senate) was to be equally divided regardless of population of each of the states (NJ Plan).

Virginia as one of the most populous stats at the time proposed that both houses of congress, representation would be based on population. New Jersey proposed equal representation. Connecticut proposed one house based on population and another on equality. Ohio wasn't a state yet, and Rhode Island did not send delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

This is another trick question. Honestly, this is a very tricky question, although you hopefully picked “The Philadelphia Convention” as the WRONG answer. Yes, the wrong answer. The Philadelphia Convention, ostensibly, was NOT to get rid of the Articles of Confederation; it was, on the face of things, to AMEND the Articles.

Now, one of the delegates in particular (James Madison) hoped for an incredibly drastic change culminating in the destruction of the Articles of Confederation. And, arguably, since he ended up as one of the chief architects of the Constitution, it is fair to say that he got his wish.

At any rate, Madison (and perhaps one or two others) were alone in their machinations. The majority of the other delegates attended the Convention under the impression that they were to amend the Articles and fix some of the more egregious problems. This, of course, changed fairly quickly, but the original purpose of the Convention was to amend, not destroy.

This is a straightforward question. The Constitution is conspicuously silent about political parties. In fact, the Founders regarded political parties as particularly vulgar and inappropriate. We see hints of this throughout the Constitution itself, along with George Washington’s farewell speech.

The (original, un-amended) Constitution does not mention political parties; indeed, it’s likely that the Framers didn’t even consider their existence. Prior to the ratification of the 12th amendment, for example, the President was elected by receiving the highest number of votes in the Electoral College; the Vice-President, however, was elected by receiving the SECOND-highest number of votes in the Electoral College (this is a bit simplified, but still true).  

When political parties began emerging, you can imagine how many problems this caused (generally it would be the President from one party, and the VP from the opposing party). 

George Washington actually warned about the dangers of political parties during his farewell speech (the speech he gave when retiring from office).

This question is slightly tricky, but not if you pay close attention to the wording. “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” This, of course, is the Constitution and a very legalese way of saying that 9 states had to ratify in order for the Constitution to supersede the Articles of Confederation.

This is politically and historically significant for two reasons: one, it removed the unanimous consent rule from the Articles of Confederation (AoC); two, it mandated that ratifying conventions—NOT state legislatures—had to approve the Constitution.

Remember: under the AoC, any amendments to the articles had to be approved by every single state! (Or, more accurately, every single state’s delegates had to approve it). Thus, the constitution purported to replace the AoC—using its OWN mechanism! That said, the Constitution didn’t REALLY take effect until VA and NY ratified it, even though 9/13 states ratified prior to those two.

As for the ratifying conventions requirement, it quite cleverly removed a lot of power from the hands of ardent antifederalists who were holed up in various states’ legislatures, and put it in the hands of the people of the states. 

The famous words "We, the People" decorate the top of the Constitution, the formal document drawn up by the representatives of the first 13 states following the American Revolution.

The Articles of Confederation were drawn up in Continental Congress.  Power was placed in unicameral congress. The Articles established no permanent executive or judicial branch. Under the Articles, congress also had very limited power. They could not levy taxes or control trade and commerce between the states. Congress could only use and enforce expressly delegated powers mentioned in the Articles. To increase effectiveness, the Articles would need to be revised.