The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 is significant because it included provisions for territorial growth and the admission of new states.
The writings of Jean Bodin provides us with an early theorisation of the idea of sovereignty even though the examples he uses are quite extensive. Essential to Bodin's notion of sovereignty is that the power the sovereign holds must be absolute and permanent. If a ruler holds absolute power for the duration of his life he can be said to be sovereign. In contrast, an elected official or some other person that holds limited powers can not be described to be sovereign. Although at times Bodin suggests that the people are sovereign, his definition of sovereignty as absolute, unlimited and enduring power points purposively towards a positive association of sovereignty and a singular monarchical, or even tyrannical, power.
Another qualification that Bodin introduces into the definition of sovereignty as absolute and perpetual is one that will become increasingly important in subsequent theorisations, culminating in the work of Carl Schmitt. For Bodin, a sovereign prince is one who is exempt from obedience to the laws of his predecessors and more importantly, those issued by himself. Sovereignty rests in being above, beyond or excepted from the law. Although it occupies a subordinate place in Bodin's theorisation, it could be said that this exception from being subject to the law is the quintessential condition of sovereignty in so far as it is understood politically.
Although for Bodin sovereignty is characterised by absolute and perpetual power he goes on to make a series of important qualifications to this concept. These come from two principle concerns. The first is real politics - Bodin seems to be aware that absolute power could licence behaviour injurious to sovereign authority. Hence for example a sovereign cannot and should not confiscate property nor break contractual agreements made with other sovereigns, estates nor private persons. The second reason is Bodin's underlying theological notion of divine authority and natural law. A sovereign may put aside civil law, but he must not question natural law (in which it appears right of property is sanctioned). Saying this, it is ultimately from this divine authority that the earthly right of sovereign power is legitimated. The prince literary does god's bidding, and yet by virtue of this can do wrong. Hopefully this helps out some :)
Answer:
It made city-states ununited, since they formed independently from each other. City-States were constantly fighting and going to war with each other.
Explanation:
Since city-states had distance between them, they adopted different lifestyles from one another; their economies depended on different recourses because their terrain was different from one another (ex: states by the coast would often fish as a main source of income and food). The mountanous terrain of Greece only separated city-states further and encouraged the independent growth of city-states. This meant Greece was ununited and city-states would constantly go to war with each other.
Answer:
For the Aztecs, the enviroment was more benevolent. The aztecs inhabited Central Mexico which is a highland area where temperatures are mild. Soils are also very fertile because they are volcanic. The biggest challenge they had to face was precisely the active volcanoes that sorround the Central Valley of Mexico.
For the Mayans, the enviroment was more unforgiving. They inhabited a lowland tropical jungle with high humidity and temperatures all-year round. The soils were not very fertile either.
It has been theorized that the Mayan civilization disappeared because of deforestation, which led to a rise of temperatures and a general worsening of enviromental conditions.
It takes less time to build cars so they can be made at a much cheaper prices that most families can afford
