Yes. And if they had fewer of both, that would have made them less powerful. 3/5 is less than 1, and it is greater than 0. What you’re saying is, effectively, “3/5 is less”, without saying what it’s less than.
It seems to me that, if the Court doesn’t agree with the law, they can find the law unconstitutional. And that can occur at any point, even after a previous Court has allowed it.
Sure, it flies in the face of tradition and precedent, but so does trying to take away appellate jurisdiction. At that point, the judicial branch itself is under attack, and has every reason to retaliate.
The idea that the actual text of the Constitution holds this country together is naive. We’ve learned that so much with Trump’s presidency. What holds us together is just our agreements and tradition.
Which sucks, and is part of the reason I am so angry about all this.
Read the link I posted. This isnt difficult. Why do you think the Northern states didnt want to count slaves at all and the Southern States wanted them to fully count? So the South would have more Congressmen and Electoral votes. There had to be compromise if a Constitution was to be agreed upon.
Census data determine states congressional delegations. Slaves counted as 1 person meant more southern congressional districts and fewer northern districts. Slaves counted as 0 people less southern congressional districts and more northern districts. Since the compromise was 3/5 rather than 1/2 one might surmise that the North caved.
The 3/5 enumeration for representation and taxation was based upon an already existing law passed by Congress under the Articles of Confederation detailing how revenue quotas were to be apportioned among the states. The proposal was introduced by James Wilson of Pa., and seconded by Charles Pinckney of SC. It was, therefore, a compromise simply adopted from the existing rule and extended to the issue of representation. While there was considerable wrangling over the next two months on the issue of slavery, relatively little of it was directed at the 3/5 clause, and what debate did occur does not seem to have at any point greatly disturbed the convention’s willingness to adopt it.
It isn’t difficult. But you’re missing the point several people are making.
When you write the compromise “reduced the number of Congressmen from slaveholding states” you’re begging the question. There was no existing plan for congressional apportionment. So the slaveholding states hadn’t had a higher amount of Congressmen to be reduced.
But you also appear to be assuming that one was the correct number and that three-fifth was a reduction from that. However it’s just as logical to assume zero was the correct number and that three-fifths was an increase from that. In which case, the compromise increased the number of Congressmen from slaveholding states.
No. It says what has been explained at length - that the Three Fifths Compromise was a compromise between not counting slaves for representation and counting them as whole persons.