A three-fifths compromise is the compromise that has been made by the slaves for the purpose of taxation and representation for a white person.
What is a three-fifths compromise?
A three-fifths compromise is a kind of agreement that has been made between the Northern and Southern state delegates at the U.S. Constitutional Convention (1787). It was mentioned in the agreement that direct taxation and representation in the House of Representatives would be done by the three-fifth slaves.
The compete question is attached in the image below.
Thus, three-fifths of the compromise was basically done by slaves for white people.
Learn more about the three-fifths compromise from here:
brainly.com/question/10987562
#SPJ1
Answer:
sometimes entrepreneurs don't put in their effort cause of failing. most people don't want to try their best inorder not to fail or get a bad record and this limit human knowledge and understanding of things and how to push forward
Answer:
It is not fair according if he did the same thing in the past I would fight for him to have mo time for what he did .
Explanation:
<em>Hope this helps !!</em>
Answer:
Identification: find the evidence, noting where it is stored.
Preservation: isolate, secure, and preserve the data.
Analysis: reconstruct fragments of data and draw conclusions based on the evidence found.
Documentation: create a record of all the data to recreate the crime scene.
Presentation: summarize and draw a conclusion.
Answer:
Supreme Court justices need a healthy respect for past precedents. But sometimes, precedent is so bad it simply has to be overturned.
The court did just that last month in the case of Knick v. Township of Scott. The court delivered a victory for champions of property rights by overturning a 1985 precedent that had blocked property rights cases from federal courts.
This overturning of an older decision sparked a vigorous public debate. Two Supreme Court justices staked out opposing positions: Elena Kagan warned against a rush to overturn precedents, while Clarence Thomas suggested older decisions that are in fact wrong should be changed.
We should welcome this debate because it highlights the judiciary’s duty to correct its own mistakes and to ensure that our constitutional rights are properly and fully protected.
