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
jenyasd209 [6]
3 years ago
7

How does Jean Bodin define absolute rule?

History
1 answer:
sammy [17]3 years ago
5 0

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 :)

You might be interested in
How did the Supreme Court change during Roosevelt’s administration?
Helen [10]

Answer:

In the Judiciary Act of 1869, Congress had established that the Supreme Court would consist of the chief justice and eight associate justices. During Roosevelt's first term, the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. In November 1936, Roosevelt won a sweeping re-election victory.

Explanation:

hope this helps if so please brainlist

Merry Christmas

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Where do most Ashanti live?
nasty-shy [4]

Answer:

western Africa

Explanation:

in Ghana I think this is it

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why might a government intervene in a market economy during times of war? to increase profits to mobilize resources quickly to c
babymother [125]

The correct answer is B) to mobilize resources quickly.

A government might intervene in a market economy during times of war to mobilize resources quickly.

although a country operates under a Capitalist economy, during times of war the system can be adjusted.

In the free-enterprise system, the federal government has minimum regulation of the economy. The free market is the main component of Capitalism where owners can be as rich as they can, and employees can benefit from bonuses and other incentives.

However, during a war, the government needs to mobilize resources quickly to send weaponry and supplies to the war front. That is why it can intervene in the economy. Indeed this was what happened in the United States during World War I and World War II.

5 0
3 years ago
Any body wants to play fortnite
DochEvi [55]

Answer:

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FORTNITE IS THE BOMB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did the British think they would experience more success in the
tamaranim1 [39]

Answer:

There were fewer Continental soldiers to fight there. They planned to use Loyalist support to take control there. They finished taking control of the northern and middle states already.

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which of these is a form of authoritarian government in which power is handed down through family lines and rulers stay in power
    7·2 answers
  • What is the main reason that the constitution did not proclaim that all men were born free and equal in their rights?
    6·2 answers
  • How was the telephone different from the telegraph?
    9·2 answers
  • The United States acquired ______ by the terms of the treaty.
    14·2 answers
  • How did the development of the Southern, Middle and Northern colonies compare politically, culturally and economically?
    12·1 answer
  • Which group is the experimental group ?
    6·1 answer
  • Why did georgia's state capitail keep moving westward
    6·1 answer
  • What did propaganda promoting Oregon promise settlers? Check all that apply.
    6·1 answer
  • What is a federal budget? A. an evaluation of the government’s current revenue sources B. an estimate of the government’s total
    6·2 answers
  • Which pillar of islam involves the washing ritual of wudu prior to prayer​
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!