Answer:
The correct answer is A. Decided during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, this accommodation onrepresentation in the proposed US House of Representatives tacitly acknowledged slavery and kept the Southern slave states from rejecting the Constitution. It was called the Three-Fifths Compromise.
Explanation:
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from the southern states and delegates from the northern states during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The debate centered on on the fact whether slaves would be counted at the same time as determining the total population of a state to determine legislative representation and for taxative functions. The matter was important, while that population number then used to determine how many seats the state would have in the House of Representatives for the next ten years. The effect was to give the southern states one-third more seats in Congress and one-third more votes they would otherwise have, allowing slave interests to largely dominate the United States government until 1865.
Answer:
yes
Explanation:
because it is made from president and our thinking
Answer:
State and local governments spend most of their resources on education, health, and social service programs. In 2019, about one-third of state and local spending went toward combined elementary and secondary education (22 percent) and higher education (9 percent).
Explanation:
Answer:
As a judge, you should be required to pick from a limited range of sentences for each offense.
Explanation:
Some may argue that having passed a difficult bar exam to be licensed to practice law, spending years prosecuting or defending criminal cases, and being involved in thousands of criminal trials should qualify a judge to be free to make any sentencing decision they want—but this notion is incorrect.
Although judges tend to be extremely experienced and highly intelligent, granting judges too much leeway in sentencing decisions leads to issues like sentencing disparity (disproportionate sentencing in similar cases). Before the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) in 1984, sentencing disparities within the United States justice system were largely unaddressed, so the SRA sought to address sentencing disparities with the imposition of mandatory sentencing guidelines for federal sentences. However, the SRA limited the power of judges to a great extent, an issue that would be addressed in the <em>United States v. Booker</em> (2005) Supreme Court case, with the court ruling the sentencing guidelines imposed by the SRA be deemed advisory rather than mandatory. What can be learned from these legal developments is that sentencing guidelines are necessary for reducing disparity within the justice system, but should remain advisory so as to not place any excessive limitations on the authority or sentencing liberty of judges.
The closest answer to the Supreme Court's legal precedent—our ideal in this case—would be picking from a limited range of sentences for each offense rather than having no limitations at all, as the latter would likely result in a return to the non-uniform, disparity-ridden justice system seen before the passage of the SRA.