Answer:
<h3>Debate over representation when creating the constitution.</h3>
Explanation:
When the Constitution was being revised during the Convention of Philadelphia, 1787, the main debate that occurred was on the issue of representation. The larger states favored representation according to the size and population of the states while the smaller states demanded for equal representation of states regardless of size and population.
This debate led to the outcome of two agreements among the delegates. Firstly, there would be two national houses of legislature in the Congress - The House of the Representatives and The Senate respectively. Secondly, the number of representatives on the House of Representatives would be proportionate to the size and population of each state while the number of representatives in the Senate would be equal for every state.
The issue was solved through a resolution called the Great Compromise.
Answer:
statute of limitations
Explanation:
In simple words, A statue of limitations refers to the legislation enacted by a governing body to specify the permissible period following an incident wherein legal procedures can begin.
After the duration stated under a limitations statute expires, a lawsuit can no more be pursued or, if lodged, can be rejected if the argument against the lawsuit occurs that the petition is duration-barred as being brought beyond the legislative expiration date. If in a civil proceeding a statute of limitations passes, the judiciary have no authority any more.
Answer:
B. It kept most black people and poor whites impoverished and in debt to landowners.
Explanation:
"Sharecropping" was meant to <u>aid the poor people and the formerly enslaved black people a chance to earn money.</u> Instead of doing good, it added to the burden of the sharecropper. This is because he needed to obey the landowner's economic deal, which <em>mostly was convenient for the landowner than the sharecropper. </em>This was popular not only among the blacks but also among the whites. Most share of the crop didn't go to the sharecropper because his debts were deducted from it. So, he only received around 1/3 of it.
Answer:
If prithviraj had killed ghori in the first battle, there would be no need for a second battle where prithviraj would be defeated.
Explanation:
Although Prithviraj emerged victorious in the first battle, he proved to be an extremely arrogant and superb character, allowing Ghori to stay alive, even though he knew it could have dire consequences. This decision by Prithviraj was senseless and caused the need for a second battle where he was defeated, also because of his arrogance, allowing Ghori to continue his plans.
