why was the 3/5 compromise in the constitution a good idea?
959090
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention in which only three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegate James Wilson.\n\nNorthern delegates generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves at their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, Southern slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and Electoral College (taxation was only a secondary issue). The final compromise of counting slaves as only three fifths of their actual numbers is generally credited with giving the South disproportionate political power in the U.S. government from the establishment of the Constitution until the Civil War.\n\nThe three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:\n\n"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." \n\n[edit] Origins\nThe three-fifths ratio was not a new concept. It originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The North had proposed counting all the slaves; the South insisted that slaves were not as productive, and suggested counting half the slaves. After proposed compromises of 2/3 and 3/4 failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the three-fifths ratio proposed by James Madison. Though this amendment failed by falling two states short of the unanimous approval required for amending the Articles (only New Hampshire and New York opposing it), the ratio was a ready solution to the impasse in the Constitutional Convention. Notice, however, that the situation was quite different in the Constitutional Convention. In amending the Articles of Confederation, the North wanted slaves to count for more than the South did because this was to determine taxes paid by the states to the federal government. In the Constitutional Convention, the more important issue was representation, so the South wanted slaves to count for more than the North did.
802819
There isn't enough space suggest you search the net.  The Bill Of Rights made ratification of the Constitution possible and even so their were states that were hesitate
852408
No, it was a good idea because it will eventually (though not intentionally) lead to the break up of the Union. This will mean that that the constitute countries will be free.
327460
Unfortunately, slavery was a vital institution for the economic well being of the South. Whenever the issue of slavery came up during the drafting of the Constitution, arguments between North and South arose, which was one of the precursors to the Civil War. The Missouri Compromise, the 2/3 Compromise, both dealt with the issue of slavery and how far north it could extend. Southerners referred to it as a "necessary evil", a bad thing, but nevertheless it was vital to the South's economy, and also the nation as a whole.
839073
Federalism goes back to the beginning of our country and the writing of the constitution.  From 1783 to 1789 the USA was a weak confederacy of 13 states with no real binding rules, law or govt to work for the country as  a whole.  If you go to Philly,in constitution hall, right next to the declaration and the constitution are the articles of confederation.  It was the argument of a Strong central federal Govt as opposed to Each state having autonomy.  Its actually what the civil war was all about the south claiming that each state had rights above what the federal govt in Washington could tell them.  The North claiming that without strong central govt there could be an anarchy of each state doing as it pleased and laws with no power as soon as you crossed a state line.  That's why Lincolns Gettysburg address is so famous it outlines the good of Govt,  of, for and by the people, and how the common good must sometimes super cede the wants of some of the people.  Recently tho federalism has come to mean opposition to strong central govt.  One of the most recent examples was Oregons passing a right to die law, struck down by the congress most of whom were GOP and pro-states rights.  Also gay marriage has become a states rights issue, but those on the side of states rights are opposed to gay marriage.  Its a complicated matter that has been dissected but not solved by the greats from Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Hamilton
539755
I'll do better than that. I'll give you 5.\n\nPass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. The current philosophy of ever increasing debt mortgages our children’s future and could collapse our economy. A reasonable amount of debt fixed by GDP or some other productivity measure would be allowed.\n\nEvery American citizen should have universal access to affordable health care even if they don’t have health insurance.\n\nNo American Citizen should be allowed to work in a job that pays less than the federal poverty level.  New workers with limited experience or under 18 years of age could be paid a training wage.\n\nEvery American should be able to choose which school their children attend. Schools must be allowed to compete if they are to improve.\n\nOur borders are to be respected, illegal immigration will be stopped. If you want to work in this country you must do it legally and you must respect our laws, our culture and our flag or you will be sent back to wherever you came from
1069740
I think from inception to present day there have been thousands of examples where the Constitution has been used in ways both agreeing and disagreeing with what the framers intended. The framework, however, has maintained the same position. Positives include the emergence of the Judicial branch (Judicial review ala Marberry v. Madison) as a protector of the rights of the people (in theory anyway, several recent decisions  have made you scratch your head). Negatives include the emergence of the bureaucracy and the welfare state. \n\nThe bill of rights has changed from time to time often based on the whims of society (prohibition anyone?). They are the protection of the people against the tyranny of government. The bill of rights is designed exclusively as a LIMITATION of government, not to protect the government from the people. Remember, a well intentioned government can round you up and put you in camps just as quickly as one with bad intent. At that point, whether it is behind a smile or the point of a gun makes no difference, right?\n\nThe declaration of independence is a reminder to the people that government can be changed when it loses the consent of the governed.
905738
They made two houses as a compromise between the (big) states that wanted a legislature representation based on population and the (small) states that thought all states should be represented equally. We have one of each now. Because the Senate has a set, smaller amount of representatives (senators), they are generally more respected.
155955
Federalist No. 10 was basically about how a Republic (the kind of country and government we now have) can work to govern and manage a really large, really diverse country with lots of different types of people and groups (what the authors call "factions" in the paper itself). The idea was that the republic-style checks and balances and the lawmaking process in the Constitution gave minority groups a way to express their differences and be heard, and it forced negotiated settlements between majority positions and minority positions (these are political positions, by the way, not minorities like African-American, Native American, etc.).\n\nIn fact, the brilliant part of how the Founding Fathers did this was that exactly BECAUSE there were all these minority viewpoints and widely varying types of people represented in the republic, it would PREVENT a majority from exercising tyranny over those who disagreed but were smaller.\n\nThe Federalist Papers were published at a time when our population was arguing about the Constitution (remember, we were a very young country). The Federalists were the pro-Constitution people, and they were trying to win popular support for the Constitution among the people.\n\nOne of the main arguments against the Constitution was that the U.S. was such a big place, with so many different kinds of people (and religions, and backgrounds, etc.), that a Republic couldn't work. That's why out of all 85 Federalist papers, Federalist No. 10 is considered one of the most important. It argued that a constitutional republic was the right way to form our country...and for the past 230 years, it's basically worked!\n\nThere's a pretty good answer in Wikipedia, too.
625559
If you're taking about the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, it allowed for the direct election of Senators by the people of a state.  Prior to that, the state legislatures had picked each state's 2 Senators.
429582
I must answer this from the perspective of an actual government, not just the hypothetical one, so things may vary somewhat (functions and powers may be differently distributed).  But I believe the basic approach is sound for those operating under a representative system of government other than the U.S. Constitution.\n\nSeveral want to suggest all three of these 'branches' are "equally important". \n\nI may agree with what I THINK they mean, but I also think they misunderstand the question, and perhaps the American system of government.\n\nI would agre that all three functions ARE important (even necessary) to a properly functioning state.\n\nI would also agree that there should be a  healthy 'balance' in which each has its own sphere (not trampling on the others) and even has the ability to act as a check on the others (what Americans call 'checks and balances').\n\nBut that is not the same thing as saying all three have "equal" powers or importance.   \n\nKeeping all that in view, I believe the LEGISLATIVE (or what you call the "parlimentarian") is the most important.  It is  THE branch most directly respresntative of and accountable to the people.  It is also THE source of laws, and what is more central to governing that the system of LAWS?\n\nYes, the other branches have important functions in seeing that laws are effectively and fairly carried out, and may even have some authority to prevent (by exective veto) or rescind (by judicial decision) at least some laws, within limits (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court can declare that a law is void because it violates the Constitution, which takes precedence as THE foundational law).  But neither of these branches can MAKE the laws (at least they are not SUPPOSED to!!)   In particular, the courts --as important as their role is in assuring that our laws are upheld-- COULD not be 'the most important in the POLITICAL systm' when (as in the U.S. design) the judges do not stand for election and so are to some extent OUTSIDE "politics".\n\nA bit of support for this understanding may be found in the 2nd definition of "political" in Webster's--\n  "of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy" --   From this perspective, clearly the legislative branch, and secondarily the executive, have the primacy.\n\nThe much greater detail of Article II of U.S. Constitution --that concerning the legislature -- is one evidence of the importance the founding fathers placed on this branch.  (Their writings back this up.)
1097680
The original idea of federalism was that a central (federal) government would unify the country, and that the federal government would handle the big-picture issues leaving the individual states to govern locally.\n\nThat was the plan. Then, around the 1920s, things went horribly wrong. The entire 10th Amendment was basically declared redundant, and lost its meaning. What does the 10th Amendment say: "The powers not  delegated to the United States [federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, shall be reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."\n\nBasically, Congress was only supposed to pass laws that related to its specifically enumerated powers, as listed in the Constitution. What went wrong? The idea of a big central federal government took off, and Congress started passing laws for anything it could get away with. \n\nYes, some good things came of it. But also some not-so-good things. And over time, Congress started to think it could legislate anything, even writing laws that ignored the Constitution. \n\nThe goal of federalism was to ensure that all the states kept talking to each other and working together. The problem is, it became a tool where the majority-rule might-makes-right Congress could impose just about anything they want.\n\nSo the question becomes -- would we be better off if the states, who so far (recently) have shown very little interest in getting along together at all, were left to their own devices?
847124
The Constitution and the Idea of Compromise\n\nhttp://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/classroom/index3.html\n\nThe Constitution of the United States\n\nhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html\n\nhttp://www.awerty.addr.com/cons2.html\n\nhttp://www.usconstitution.net/constquick.html\n\nPREAMBLE\n\nWe, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.\n\nConstitution of the United States.\n\nhttp://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html\n\nThe U.S. Constitution is the oldest constitution still in effect in the world. Test your knowledge of this important document.\n\nhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/kids/constitution/quiz/\n\nhttp://www.infoplease.com/spot/usconstitutionquizzes.html\n\nhttp://www.expertrating.com/quizzes/us-constitution-quiz.asp\n\nStudy Tool for the Constitution\n\nhttp://home.att.net/~standardsalert_topics/Const_Study_Tool_to_Amendment_XXVII.htm#_The_Constitution,_with\n\nGood luck.\n\nKevin, Liverpool, England.
955295
This amendment was added as a specific response to the Anti-Federalists (Madison, Jay and Hamilton) who were arguing that they were afraid if a specific right wasn't written into the Constitution the government could infringe on it. It was designed as a catchall to ensure that just because a specific right wasn't spelled out in black and white the government would not be allowed to simply trample it. This, by far and away, was the most important aspect of ensuring that the document that framed the fledgling US government was one that decided what the GOVERNMENT could and could not do rather than a basis for what the PEOPLE could and could not do.
59864
If you mean amendments to the constitution:\n\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
1162358
First off, the framers of the constitution did not want a two party system per se, what they wanted was a government set up to do war with itself. The framers wanted a government with gridlock, checks and balances and division of powers to prevent the situation we find ourselves in today, where a single ideology has siezed control of the government. \nUnfortunatly for our nation most americans today are to disinterested in the political process to think to not vote for the R's or the D's. There are independant candidates but without party support its virtually impossible to make it in a political race, unless you have milions of dollars to spend. \nWe as a people need to realize that the decision is not between left and right, but freedom or tyranny.
966043
It sounds like a good idea. Here's the problem.\n\nUnlike at the time of formation, we as a nation are very polarized. There is a huge mass of people, often in the majority, that think it's acceptable to force majority religions on the minority, ok for the government to ignore the laws at will, and ok to discriminate against couples based on their gender.\n\nThe current constitution may be flawed, but given the level of hate and partisan brain-damage currently rampant in the US, it's scary to think of what else they might come up with.