All categories

2 years ago

What does the compromise argued by madison suggest about the standards of the debate in the constitutional convention era?

1 answer:

4 0

The compromise argued by Madison suggest that people of the time did not feel addressing slavery itself would lead to achievable solutions.

The argument placed by the Madison in the Constitution Convention was:

In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of [the right to vote] by the constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which the federal Constitution apportions the representatives. In this point of view the Southern States might retort the complaint, by insisting that the principle laid down by the convention required that no regard should be had to the policy of particular States towards their own inhabitants; and consequently, that the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens. A rigorous adherence, however, to this principle, is waived by those who would be gainers by it. All that they ask is that equal moderation be shown on the other side. Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one.

To learn more about Madison click here:

brainly.com/question/9594653

#SPJ9

You might be interested in

Responsibility for solving environmental problems are handled by

Angelina_Jolie [31]

Answer:

Environmental authority

4 0

3 years ago

Answer this please hope it’s right or not

Grace [21]

Answer:

A, B, E

Explanation:

A: Euthanasia must be legal for it to be morally <em>and</em> legally permissible. If it is illegal, it's basically considered murder in the area.

B: Euthanasia means to relieve someone of their pain by ending their life. This is a very grave decision that has irreversible consequences. If there are other ways to relieve the patient's suffering that are much less harmful, they should come before ending the patient's life.

C: Ending a life for the benefit of others is immoral because it is an irreversible consequence. You are taking the life of another human for other people to temporarily feel better. That is not okay and should never be considered as a justifiable factor.

D: You would be taking the life of someone else to make yourself an exemplar for others. That's basically exploiting their death for your benefit. That is immoral because you are not considering the best interest and well-being of the patient.

E: The doctor and patient must have a previous agreement to provide euthanasia because if there was no such agreement, it would be against or without the patient's consent. This would be immoral because you are not taking into consideration the decisions and rights of the patient.

These are my opinions, but it's up to you to decide the best options based on your morals and social customs. Good luck!

3 0

3 years ago

Which occupation poses the threat of neck or back injuries due to incorrect sitting posture? A. restaurant service B. office wor

Kamila [148]

Answer:

Office Work

Explanation:

4 0

3 years ago

Carmen conducted an experiment to determine if listening to different types of music would affect a person's pulse. her hypothes

marissa [1.9K]

The answer is <u>"The experiment is missing a control group."</u>

Control group, the standard to which examinations are made in an experiment. Numerous experiments are intended to incorporate a control gathering and at least one trial gatherings; truth be told, a few researchers hold the term analyze for contemplate outlines that incorporate a control gathering. In a perfect world, the control gathering and the exploratory gatherings are indistinguishable inside and out with the exception of that the test bunches are subjected to medicines or interventions accepted to affect the result of intrigue while the control amass isn't.

6 0

3 years ago

rena contributes 10 percent of her income to her church every month. some argue that rena does this because she benefits from th

3241004551 [841]

They are arguing the concept of guild avoidance.

Some psychiatric illnesses, such as psychopathy, may cause someone to experience no shame or remorse. And youngsters who are raised to experience a lot of guilt and shame are more likely to carry on that pattern as adults.
As a result, we assume that suppressing guilt has an indirect effect on moral behavior: those who feel less guilt after suppression see immoral behavior as less immoral, believe themselves to be more likely to intend to engage in immoral behavior, and, as a result, engage in immoral behavior.
Although theory predicts that guilt encourages approach and shame motivates avoidance, research has not always confirmed these links. The findings demonstrated that shame and guilt are more strongly associated with self-caused wrongdoings than with other-caused wrongdoings.

Thus this is the meaning of guild avoidance.

Refer here to learn more about guilt: brainly.com/question/25713795

#SPJ4

6 0

2 years ago