1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
solmaris [256]
3 years ago
14

From maya and aztec writings and other cultural indications, we can conclude that

Social Studies
1 answer:
Debora [2.8K]3 years ago
3 0
<span>Maya and Aztec people lived in a complex political world complete with alliances and different groups.
These civilizations often have to face dangers from many groups in order to fight over resource ownership. To fully establish military security, two tribes often join up with one another in order to protect the area that they use for their day to day activities.</span>
You might be interested in
What makes a great ruler? Explain 3 traits a great ruler/leader has in order to be considered ‘great’.
Korolek [52]

Answer:

Leadership, Communication, and empathy

5 0
3 years ago
Why did president Woodrow Wilson say that the Supreme Court
adell [148]
Conventions were called to determine what form the ultimate Constitution would <span>take, what it would include and exclude, and generally how it would work.</span>

8 0
3 years ago
24 POINTS FOR QUICK HELP
Galina-37 [17]
Legislative apportionment, also called legislative delimitation, process by which representation is distributed among the constituencies of a representative assembly. This use of the term apportionment is limited almost exclusively to the United States. In most other countries, particularly the United Kingdom and the countries of the British Commonwealth, the term delimitation is used.
Apportionment can take relatively simple forms. For example, in the assembly of ancient Athens, each citizen represented himself. During later centuries, the courts and councils of kings and emperors comprised representatives of several classes, such as the nobility and the clergy, and of bodies such as guilds and centres of learning. With the growth of democracy, the extension of suffrage, and the rise of political parties, legislative apportionment became more complex. Apportionment had to be methodically and mathematically arranged to ensure that the distribution of legislative seats reflected the will of the electorate.
Although practice varies widely, there are five predominant types of legislative apportionment, each giving rise to a particular form of constituency:
1. Territorial apportionment: constituencies have specified boundaries, and ideally the number of voters in each of the constituencies is about equal. This is the most common form of apportionment.2. Apportionment among self-contained governing units (e.g., towns, counties, cities, states, etc.): the unit of local government acts as the constituency and is represented in higher legislative bodies.3. Apportionment among official bodies that act as constituencies: local or provincial bodies choose representatives (e.g., U.S. senators were chosen by state legislatures in most states before the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution).4. Apportionment among functional groupings of the population: the electorate is grouped according to social or economic characteristics, which results in divisions such as that between the nobility, clergy, and commoners of early English Parliaments or that between the occupational, industrial, professional, national, and other groupings used as the basis for apportionment in guild socialism.5. Apportionment among party interests: systems of proportional representation are designed to reflect as many facets of voter opinion as possible. Under the latter two systems, the group or party is regarded as the constituency.
SIMILAR TOPICSsuffrageinterest grouppolitical conventionconstituencyplurality systemreferendum and initiativeproportional representationplebisciterecall electionprimary electionDisparity in the size of constituencies has been a recurring problem in legislative apportionment. Electoral reforms are often instituted to eliminate malapportionments such as the system of rotten boroughs in Britain and the practice of gerrymandering in the United States. Size disparities resulting from changes in population continue to exist in many countries, though they are seldom very large. (One exceptional example was the difference, during the British general election of 2001, between the constituency of the Western Isles in Scotland, which contained an electorate of fewer than 25,000 people, and the constituency of the Isle of Wight, whose electorate exceeded 100,000.)
The authority to alter apportionment can be an important tool in maintaining the power of the incumbent political party. Constituencies can be defined, for example, in a way that concentrates the power of the opposition into relatively few districts and gives the ruling party narrow majorities in a large number of districts; the incumbent party is thereby awarded a disproportionately large share of seats. Using a different strategy, individual incumbents sometimes seek to influence the apportionment process to give themselves districts with no substantial opposition. Although politically motivated apportionment is generally considered an abuse, U.S. courts have regarded the practice as legal.
During the last two decades of the 20th century, some state legislatures in the United States undertook what amounted to racial gerrymandering to preserve the integrity and power of special-interest blocs of voters in large cities and other regions and to increase minority representation. However, the Supreme Court subsequently invalidated several racially gerrymandered majority-minority congressional districts and ruled that race could not be the determining factor in the drawing of constituency boundaries.
4 0
3 years ago
1-The processes that change one rock into another rock.
Alina [70]

4: Cooling and solification of magma

4 0
3 years ago
Are george and hazel's response to the government similar or different from harrison's responses?
Ksju [112]
George and Hazel's response to the government was opposite to Harrison's response. George and Hazel decided to go with the government's orders and keep their handicaps. They believed that it was necessary to keep the order in society. On the other hand, Harrison decided to protest and remove his handicaps. He also urged everyone to do the same. 
3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • During the Industrial Revolution, inaction on behalf of the government to pass labor laws and protect the workers resulted in th
    13·1 answer
  • Six-year-old Nick's parents have been called to school repeatedly during the past two years for a variety of problems ranging fr
    5·1 answer
  • Who would the people of Egypt blame if the crops would not grow or if disease struck?
    8·2 answers
  • Which of these is not included in the study of social sciences?
    14·1 answer
  • prior to increased global contact regional diets of the world were based on the dominant of the region
    6·2 answers
  • Psychologist Harry Triandis said all cultures are simultaneously very similar and very different. What does Triandis mean by thi
    5·1 answer
  • When Roger Williams established the colony of Rhode Island:
    14·1 answer
  • As a driver (age 21 or older), if you refuse a test to determine the amount of alcohol in your body:
    7·2 answers
  • How did Europeans justify their economic exploitation of Central Africa?
    12·1 answer
  • The location of constantinople made it a place
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!