The <span>Three-Fifths Compromise</span> was a <span>compromise reached</span> between<span> delegates from </span>southern states<span> and those from </span>northern states<span> during the 1787 United States </span>Constitutional Convention<span>. The debate was over whether, and if so, how, </span>slaves<span> would be </span>counted<span> when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing </span>purposes<span>. </span>The<span> issue was important, as this </span>population number<span> would then be used to determine the </span>number of seats<span> that the state would have in the </span>United States House of Representatives<span> for the next ten </span>years<span>.</span>
Answer:
online hour time to me with a picture of your
"<span>Slavery was abolished in the United States" has nothing to do with the Dredd Scott case, which instead said that blacks had no standing in court because they were not citizens. </span>
The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in
their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. While the
king, and all in authority under him, were believed to govern in justice
and mercy, according to the laws and constitution derived to them from
the God of nature and transmitted to them by their ancestors, they
thought themselves bound to pray for the king and queen and all the
royal family, and all in authority under them, as ministers ordained of
God for their good; but when they saw those powers renouncing all the
principles of authority, and bent upon the destruction of all the
securities of their lives, liberties, and properties, they thought it
their duty to pray for the continental congress and all the thirteen
State congresses, &c.
It should be noted that a judicial philosophy in which a justice is more likely to let stand the decisions of other government branches is known as judicial activism.
On the other hand, a judicial philosophy in which a justice is more likely to overturn decisions or rule actions by the other branches unconstitutional, especially in an attempt to broaden individual rights and liberties, is called judicial restraint.
Judicial restraint simply means the power of judicial review to set aside government acts. On the other hand, judicial restraint simply means the refusal to strike down such acts.
Learn more about judicial review on:
brainly.com/question/4937540
