The answer is Douglas A. MacArthur
I hope this helps
Answer: the representation of states in Congress.
<em>The Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise both focused on </em><em>the representation of states in Congress.</em>
Both of these compromises were devised during the United States Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Great Compromise resolved a dispute between small population states and large population states. The large population states wanted representation in Congress to be based on a state's population size. The smaller states feared this would lead to unchecked dominance by the big states; they wanted all states to receive the same amount of representation. The Great Compromise created a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature. Representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population. In the Senate, all states would have the same amount of representation, by two Senators.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a way of accounting (somewhat) for the population of slaves in states that permitted slavery. For taxation and representation purposes, the question was whether slaves should count in the population figures. (They were not considered voting citizens at that time.) The Three-Fifths Compromise said that three out of every five slaves could be counted when determining a state's population size for determining how many seats that state would receive in the House of Representatives.
<span>Based on my research, Aristotle believes that his "Prime Mover" is God. He believed that everything that has happened, every "cause", had to have a cause before it. Something had to cause the first cause. However, the first cause can not be in the same formula or be part of the same equation. The rules of the first cause can not applied to the "causer" of the first cause. God has no beginning or end so time doesn't apply to God.</span>
Yes I Believe He was a strong supporter of the Roman Church
Competition exists wherever organizations turn out similar product that charm to an equivalent
cluster of customers, once totally different corporations create or sell things that though not in
head to go competition still contend for an equivalent cash within the customer’s pocket.
Price wars will produce economically devastating and psychologically debilitating things
that take an unprecedented toll on a personal, on an individual, an organization, and industry
gainfulness. Regardless of who wins, the competitors all appear to wind up more terrible off than
before they joined the fight. But, price wars are turning out to be progressively regular and
extraordinarily savage. Consider the accompanying examples:
A common plan of action to jump-start demand is to adopt a razor and blade strategy:
valuation the merchandise low so as to stimulate demand and increase the put in base, so making
an attempt to form high profits on the sale of enhances, that area unit priced comparatively high.
This strategy owes its name to inventor, the corporate that pioneered this strategy to sell its
<span>razors and razor blades. This identical strategy is employed within the videogame industry</span>
