The difference between the Social contract theories of both was that Hobbs believed<u> c) that the </u><u>people </u><u>could </u><u>overthrow </u><u>their</u><u> ruler </u><u>if that ruler was </u><u>abusing </u><u>their </u><u>power</u><u>. </u>
<h3>Social Contract according to Locke</h3>
- Government owes citizens the right to protect their property.
- If a government was not performing, they could be removed from power.
Hobbes on the other hand, believed that the government owed nothing to the citizens and so the people could not remove it even if it wasn't performing.
In conclusion, option c is correct.
Find out more on Locke's theory at brainly.com/question/14308888.
Yes he was, he was justified because article two grants him authority to issue executive order.
Popular sovereignty and federalism are important to the constitution because they both say that the people give the government its authority. This principal was important because they wanted the government to be subject to the law not above it.
We understand <em>popular sovereignty</em> as the concept in which political power rests with the people who can create, alter and abolish government. People express themselves through voting and free participation in government.
And <em>federalism</em> stands for the sharing of power between federal and state government.
Answer:
4
Explanation:
(im not 100% sure but i belive so)
Answer:
uh
Explanation:
we need a picture of the question or at least the answers to help you
