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.
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
The national government is responsible for national defense because it has the authority and resources to protect the country from external threats and ensure the security of its citizens. This responsibility is rooted in the Constitution, which grants the federal government the power to raise and maintain armed forces. Additionally, a unified national defense strategy is essential for coordinating military efforts, intelligence, and diplomatic relations, which are critical for effective defense against potential aggressors. Ultimately, a stable and secure nation strengthens its sovereignty and promotes peace.
1917
when economy is stable
----the parties can continue to make compromises over a long period of time(novanet)----
YES. The Vietnamese government is very stable.
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.
Its a known fact that Ethiopia doesn't have a stable government.
National Association of Stable Staff was created in 1975.
Spanish Government is fully stable. It is usually elected every four years.
Yes, Togo is a very stable country but the government isn't the best it could be.
Israel is very politically stable. Almost all threats to the Israeli government are external, not internal, which is the mark of a stable government.
Difficult to say, approximately stable.
`Not very stable
Hamilton's plan aimed to strengthen the national government by establishing a national bank, assuming state debts, and creating a system of federal taxes. By centralizing financial power and establishing a stable currency, it enhanced the government's ability to manage the economy and address national issues effectively. Additionally, the plan promoted federal authority over states, allowing the national government to exert greater control in financial matters and foster economic unity. Ultimately, these measures increased the national government's power relative to the states.
establish a stable government