Answer: D because you would only get 3hr. to work on a school day. So less school.
Each state would have two delegates in the Senate, while representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population. Finally, the delegates agreed to the "Great Compromise," also known as the Connecticut Compromise.
Their so-called Great Compromise (also known as the Connecticut Compromise after its architects, Connecticut delegates Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth) established a dual system of congressional representation. Each state would be assigned a number of seats in the House of Representatives based on its population.
The Great Compromise of 1787 gave larger states population-based representation in the lower house, while smaller states gained equal representation in the upper house.
To know more about Great Compromise of 1787 here
brainly.com/question/8242538
#SPJ4
yes, America could still in fact get a large territory. They could get it by force (war), Buy the land, or a treaty. The bigger question however, is it worth doing it. If America wants to get the land by war that just adds to what the're doing in the middle east, and if it's a neighbor next to them (Canada or Mexico) the blood shead could be high because of pupulated cities. As for money or a treaty it wouln't be that much of a risk but it depends on how much money and the details of the treaty.
Gerald Ford and he became president when Nixon resigned because of the Watergate Scandal
In general, people who take a "layer cake" view of federalism believe that state and national government should be as separate as possible, since they don't want state's rights to be trampled upon.