Answer:
A social contract is an agreement between people in a society to cooperate for social benefits, such as giving up their freedoms for protection. So the answer would be "A social contract is based on the belief that people must be willing to give up some of their freedoms to maintain order"
Explanation:
<span>
Francisco Vázquez de Coronado</span>
Octavian demonstrated that the roman republic had been given a fresh start by overhauling the social and political facets of Roman life and freeing them from the dictatorship of Julius Caesar and this led to peace and prosperity throughout the Greek and roman world.
Augustus Octavian
Emperor Augustus whose original name was Gaius Octavius was the first Roman emperor, after the fatal destruction of the Roman empire by the reign of Julius Caesar, who was his great-uncle and adoptive father.
During his reign, he demonstrated that the Roman empire had been given a fresh start from the dictatorial ruler ship of Julius Caesar he overhauled every facet of Roman life and introduced peace and prosperity to the Greek/Roman world.
The ultimate source of Augustus Octavian's power was the Roman army. He confidently divided the number of legions and assigned veterans in colonies, which helped solidify Roman rule in distant provinces and consolidate the empire.
Learn more about Octavian at brainly.com/question/893934
Answer:
The Home Front during World War One refers to life in Britain during the war itself. The Home Front saw a massive change in the role of women, rationing, the bombing of parts of Britain by the Germans (the first time civilians were targeted in war), conscientious objectors and strikes by discontented workers.
Explanation:
The Home Front during World War One refers to life in Britain during the war itself. The Home Front saw a massive change in the role of women, rationing, the bombing of parts of Britain by the Germans (the first time civilians were targeted in war), conscientious objectors and strikes by discontented workers.
Keeping it brief, the Court -- little by little -- gradually asserted that certain rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are, in some way, "in" the 14th too; that the 14th protects those rights from being violated by the states. But the Court never said that all of the rights in the Bill of Rights are "in" the 14th. Over the course of many decades the Court kept on expanding the list of which rights in the BoR are "in" the 14th, but all along the way the Court kept on saying too, that not all of the rights are "in." By the 1960's *most* of the rights in the BoR were "absorbed" into the 14th.
