The Three-Fifths Clause was one of the many compromises delegates worked out during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. It struck a balance between large slave states in the South and smaller northern states that had abolished slavery. It restricted, but not eliminated, the apportioned congressional representation of slave states by limiting the Census to counting slaves as only three-fifths of a person
Answer:
The decisions in Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Mapp v. Ohio are very important to defendants in criminal proceedings today because they enlarged defendants' rights in criminal trials and investigations.
Thus, Miranda v. Arizona refers to the fact that those accused of a crime must know their rights prior to being questioned by the police, that is, that everything they say can be used against them and that they have the right to consult a lawyer.
For its part, Gideon v. Wainwright guaranteed the defendants the right to have a lawyer, even when they could not afford it on their own financial means. In this way, a defendant is not left legally unprotected for not being able to afford a lawyer, since it is the state that grants him one for free.
Finally, Mapp v. Ohio prohibits the use of illegitimately obtained evidence in criminal proceedings. Thus, non-compliance with the Fourth Amendment (and the consequent search without a warrant) renders the evidence obtained in this way not admissible in court.
Provide a rebuttal to a counterclaim, research relevant details to support their claim, make sure it has a mostly respectful tone, and mostly objective language.
<span>The most logical answer would be cotton. With Texas as such a large state and having such a large ability to produce such a plant, this would add such a glut to the cotton market that it would drive down overall prices significantly.</span>
