why did delegates from most states initially meet in philadelphia in 1787
to amend the articles of confederation
to debate the admission of slave states to the union
to repeal the northwest ordinance
to ratify the constitution and the bill of rights
7 answers
The delegates from most states initially met in Philadelphia in 1787 to amend the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation, which had served as the first constitution of the United States, were proving to be ineffective in providing a strong central government and addressing various issues facing the nation. The goal of the delegates was to make necessary changes to the Articles or potentially draft a new constitution to create a more unified and effective government. The events that unfolded during the meeting ultimately led to the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution, which replaced the Articles of Confederation. The Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1791, after the Constitution was ratified. The debate over the admission of slave states to the union and the repeal of the Northwest Ordinance were not the primary reasons for convening the delegates in Philadelphia in 1787.
what did the three fifths compromise do
The Three-Fifths Compromise, agreed upon during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, determined how enslaved individuals would be counted for the purpose of determining a state's population for legislative representation and taxation. The compromise stated that, for the purposes of representation, enslaved individuals would be counted as three-fifths of a person. This compromise was reached between the Northern and Southern states, as the Southern states wanted enslaved individuals to be counted as whole persons to gain more representation in Congress, while the Northern states opposed counting them at all. The compromise ensured that the Southern states would have more representation in the House of Representatives than they would have had if enslaved individuals were not counted, giving them greater political influence. It was a significant and controversial compromise that demonstrated the deep divide between states on the issue of slavery.
what did popular sovereignty do
Popular sovereignty is the principle that political power resides with the people, who can express their will through voting and elections. In the context of American history, popular sovereignty played a significant role in the debate over slavery during the mid-19th century. The idea behind popular sovereignty was that the residents of a territory or state should decide for themselves whether to allow or prohibit slavery.
The concept of popular sovereignty came into play during the period of westward expansion in the United States, particularly with the acquisition of new territories such as the Mexican Cession (territories gained from Mexico after the Mexican-American War) and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Instead of Congress making a decision on whether to allow slavery in these territories, popular sovereignty allowed the residents of the territories to decide through a vote.
However, popular sovereignty faced significant challenges and controversies. The concept was seen as a compromise to resolve the issue of slavery, but it also led to conflicts and violence, particularly in Kansas, where pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions clashed. The idea of allowing the people to determine the status of slavery in each territory eventually contributed to increasing tensions between the North and the South, further fueling the path towards the American Civil War.
Overall, popular sovereignty aimed to give power to the people to determine their own governmental decisions, particularly regarding the contentious issue of slavery during the mid-19th century in the United States.
The concept of popular sovereignty came into play during the period of westward expansion in the United States, particularly with the acquisition of new territories such as the Mexican Cession (territories gained from Mexico after the Mexican-American War) and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Instead of Congress making a decision on whether to allow slavery in these territories, popular sovereignty allowed the residents of the territories to decide through a vote.
However, popular sovereignty faced significant challenges and controversies. The concept was seen as a compromise to resolve the issue of slavery, but it also led to conflicts and violence, particularly in Kansas, where pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions clashed. The idea of allowing the people to determine the status of slavery in each territory eventually contributed to increasing tensions between the North and the South, further fueling the path towards the American Civil War.
Overall, popular sovereignty aimed to give power to the people to determine their own governmental decisions, particularly regarding the contentious issue of slavery during the mid-19th century in the United States.
what did checks and blances do
Checks and balances is a fundamental principle in the separation of powers system utilized in many democratic governments, including the United States. The concept of checks and balances ensures that no branch of government becomes too powerful and that there is a system of accountability among the branches.
In a system of checks and balances, each branch of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) has certain powers and authorities that act as a check on the powers of the other branches. This system allows for a balance in power and prevents any one branch from becoming dominant, thereby safeguarding against potential abuses of power.
Here are some examples of how checks and balances work in practice:
1. The legislative branch can check the executive branch by approving appointments, passing laws that can override a presidential veto, and being responsible for the impeachment process.
2. The executive branch can check the legislative branch by vetoing legislation, proposing legislation, and having the power to implement and enforce laws.
3. The judicial branch can check both the executive and legislative branches by interpreting laws, reviewing the constitutionality of actions and laws through judicial review, and ensuring that actions are consistent with the Constitution.
Through checks and balances, each branch of government has the ability to limit and control the powers of the other branches, promoting accountability and preventing any single branch from becoming too dominant. This principle is aimed at protecting individual liberties and maintaining a system of government that is fair and just.
In a system of checks and balances, each branch of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) has certain powers and authorities that act as a check on the powers of the other branches. This system allows for a balance in power and prevents any one branch from becoming dominant, thereby safeguarding against potential abuses of power.
Here are some examples of how checks and balances work in practice:
1. The legislative branch can check the executive branch by approving appointments, passing laws that can override a presidential veto, and being responsible for the impeachment process.
2. The executive branch can check the legislative branch by vetoing legislation, proposing legislation, and having the power to implement and enforce laws.
3. The judicial branch can check both the executive and legislative branches by interpreting laws, reviewing the constitutionality of actions and laws through judicial review, and ensuring that actions are consistent with the Constitution.
Through checks and balances, each branch of government has the ability to limit and control the powers of the other branches, promoting accountability and preventing any single branch from becoming too dominant. This principle is aimed at protecting individual liberties and maintaining a system of government that is fair and just.
1 answer