Answer:
False
Explanation:
It could affect anyone, from people in the vehicle with you, to pedestrians, and even your loved ones. :)
Answer:
Basically, what the statement is saying is that the constituents of a government are it's most valuable resource, and nothing is more important than that resource. The social contract is the implicit agreement between the government and the people saying that if the people follow laws and work together for societal benefits, it is the responsibility of the government to protect them. <u>This Reflects the idea of the social contract </u> because the government's most valuable resource is its people, and under the social contract, if they follow laws, it is the government's responsibility to protect them and their rights. <u>As for how the social contract protects people's rights,</u> if the constituents follow laws and contribute towards the development of society, it is the governments responsibility to protect their rights.
um I think they have to sleep
Answer:
This is a process called mediation which is a procedure in which the parties discuss their disputes with the assistance of a trained impartial third person(s) who assists them in reaching a settlement. The parties will fashion the solution as the mediator moves through the process.
Explanation:
Because the framers of the United States Constitution (written in 1787) believed that protecting property rights relating to inventions would encourage the new nation’s economic growth, they gave Congress—the national legislature—a constitutional mandate to grant patents for inventions. The resulting patent system has served as a model for those in other nations. Recently, however, scholars have questioned whether the American system helped achieve the framers’ goals. These scholars have contended that from 1794 to roughly 1830, American inventors were unable to enforce property rights because judges were “anticipate” and routinely invalidated patents for arbitrary reasons. This argument is based partly on examination of court decisions in cases where patent holders (“patentees”) brought suit alleging infringement of their patent rights. In the 1820s, for instance, 75 percent of verdicts were decided against the patentee. The proportion of verdicts for the patentee began to increase in the 1830s, suggesting to these scholars that judicial attitudes toward patent rights began shifting then.
To learn more about protecting property rights visit here ; brainly.com/question/28388414?referrer=searchResults
#SPJ4
