Answer:
Reich also pointed out that when wealthy people give money to their town foundations, their tax-deductable donations stay in their own communities. The contributions enhance the schools’ success, which in turn increases the donors’ property value. In other words, the rich receive tax credits for giving money to themselves.
<u>Answer:</u> Man who first explored Oklahoma on behalf of the U.S.
The Mongol Empire, with its peak size under the rule of Kublai Khan around the year of 1279, included parts of modern Russia in the North, modern day Korea, and modern China in the South on one end of the Asian continent. It stretched through the Asian continent all the way to modern day Hungary in Europe. It also included parts of the modern Middle East such as Iraq and Iran. The total area of the Mongol Empire in its peak was around 40 million km^2.
Answer:
Answering the question "How was the issue of slavery addressed in the U.S Constitution" is a little tricky because the words "slave" or "slavery" were not used in the original Constitution, and the word "slavery" is very hard to find even in the current Constitution. However, the issues of the rights of enslaved people, its related trade and practice, in general, have been addressed in several places of the Constitution; namely, Article I, Articles IV and V and the 13th Amendment, which was added to the Constitution nearly 80 years after the signing of the original document. However, slavery had been tacitly protected in the original Constitution through clauses such as the Three-Fifths Compromise, in which three-fifths of the slave population was counted for representation in the United States House of Representatives.
Explanation:
When the Constitution was made in 1787, slavery was a powerful institution and such a heated topic at the Constitutional Convention. The majority of disagreements came when the representatives from slave-holding states felt their "peculiar" institution was being threatened. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and a slave owner, opposed the pro-slavery delegates and went on to say it would be, "wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men." He didn't believe that slavery should be justified by federal law. Once the Constitution was ratified, slavery was never mentioned by name. Shouldn't this be obvious support that the Constitution did not support slavery? Not exactly.
