The correct answer is A) so that no single branch of the government would gain too much power.
<em>The concepts of checks and balances were established by the authors of the Constitution so that no single branch of the government would gain too much power.</em>
This concept is a valuable precept because with the checks and balances can prevent wrongdoings from the other parts of the government and the exercise of power is divided equally. In the United States, the Constitution acknowledges three branches: the executive, that in the presidency of the U.S., the legislative, that is the House of Representatives and the Senate, and finally, the Judiciary, that is the Supreme Court.
Absolute location is: 30N 90W
Relative location is: around the southern-west part of Louisiania, located near the Gulf of Mexico
hope this helps
East of the Mediterranean
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.
