How would states be represented in congress under the new jersey plan

Under the New Jersey Plan, states would be represented equally .

Further Explanation:

The New Jersey Plan was a plan outlined at the Constitutional Convention which was supposed to settle the issue of representation in the legislative branch. In this plan, William Patterson proposed the new US government to have a unicameral legislature in which all states have the same amount of delegates (aka representatives).

States with larger populations at the time, like Virginia, did not like this plan because they felt that they should have more representatives in the legislative branch than smaller states. This is why the Virginia Plan was also introduced at the Constitutional Convention. This plan would have a bicameral legislature in which the number of representatives was determined by a states population.

Ultimately, ideas from both of these plans were used in the creation of the Great (aka Connecticut) Compromise.

Learn More:

Difference between a unicameral and bicameral legislature-

Key Details:

Topics: American History, American Government

Grade Level: 7-12

Keywords: New Jersey Plan, Virginia Plan, Constitutional Convention, Congress, unicameral, bicameral

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is