Two of the most important constitutional compromises learned in school are the Great Compromise and the 3/5's Compromise. The Great Compromise was in regards to how the nation's legislature would be organized; the compromise settled the dispute by creating one house based on the population of each state- the House of Representatives, while the second house would hold two seats for each state- the Senate. The second compromise was in regards to how the House of Representatives would be affected by southern slaves. According to the 3/5's Compromise, each slave would count for 3/5's of a citizen in the census.
the 3/5ths compromise which said that for that for every five slaves in the US 3 would count for the HOR and Senate representations.
The Great Compromise combined the Virginia Plan (Big state plan) with the New Jersey Plan (small state plan)..
The compromises that emerged from the constitutional convention was between the small states and the large states. One house would be made up of representatives. The number of representatives allowed from each state was based on how many people lived in that state. Larger states would have more. Smaller states would have less. It would be called the House of Representatives. The other house would be called a Senate. It would be made up of an equal number of representatives from each state.
The 3/5 comprimise and the great comprimise.
The colonies agreed to have the states give up some essential powers to the federal government. The federalists also agreed to leave plenary powers with the states.
The Great Compromise, the Three-Fifths Compromise and other smaller compromises were made in the creation of the Constitution.
The abolishment of slavery was taken out. That was the biggest thing. In order to get southern representatives to sign it, they ahd to compromise and take that part out.
not ansewring ur Homework kid
There is no definitive answer to this question as it depends on a variety of factors, including the specific country in question and the particular type of government. However, in general, governments with a weak national government are considered to be less effective and less stable than those with a strong national government. This is because a weak national government is less able to effectively manage the country's affairs and to protect the rights and interests of its citizens. In addition, a weak national government is more likely to be overthrown by a strong, centralized government.
that it has a stable government
1917
when economy is stable
They expected improved trade, protection, and a stable economy
----the parties can continue to make compromises over a long period of time(novanet)----
YES. The Vietnamese government is very stable.
Its a known fact that Ethiopia doesn't have a stable government.
There is no definitive answer to this question as it depends on a variety of factors, including the specific country in question and the particular type of government. However, in general, governments with a weak national government are considered to be less effective and less stable than those with a strong national government. This is because a weak national government is less able to effectively manage the country's affairs and to protect the rights and interests of its citizens. In addition, a weak national government is more likely to be overthrown by a strong, centralized government.
National Association of Stable Staff was created in 1975.
`Not very stable
Difficult to say, approximately stable.
Yes, Togo is a very stable country but the government isn't the best it could be.
Spanish Government is fully stable. It is usually elected every four years.
Israel is very politically stable. Almost all threats to the Israeli government are external, not internal, which is the mark of a stable government.
Mexico gained a stable government in August 24
establish a stable government