Answer:
explanation down
Explanation:
pros they were able to colinalize and were able to do things more easily together the cons were there would be conflict and they would get raided sometimes
The correct answers are A) Laws change often and there is no standard process for deciding what will become law, C) Laws do not apply basic principles of fairness and morality, and E) Laws allow government officials to behave in any way, without adhering to the same laws as other citizens.
<em>The results of a government </em><u><em>NOT ADHERING</em></u><em> to the rule of law could be the following: Laws change often and there is no standard process for deciding what will become law, Laws do not apply basic principles of fairness and morality, and Laws allow government officials to behave in any way, without adhering to the same laws as other citizens.</em>
The rule of law means that nobody, including the government, is above the law. The rule of law is doing this right by every single member in a society. No exceptions.
So The results of a government <em><u>NOT ADHERING</u></em> to the rule of law could be disastrous for the civic life in a society and the security of its citizens. Laws could change and for any reason, to the convenience of the officials. There would be a tendency for corruptive practices. Laws do not apply basic principles of fairness and morality, it could become the "law of the jungle," or the survivor of the fittest. And finally, Laws allow government officials to behave in any way, without adhering to the same laws as other citizens. This means that the powerful men in power can do whatever the like, and impose their will on people.
I would assume the answer would be limited or restricted.
Pacal the Great changed the rules of succession in the Mayan civilization by setting the precedent for rule to be passed down through a male relation.
