Answer:
No
Explanation:
The word "always" implied that the states should obey the federal government under any circumstances.
Most of the times, yes. I think it is important for the states to obey the federal government in order to maintain law and order in the country.
But, there's a chance that the federal government might impose a legislations that's violates the constitutions or human rights. At that point, the states need to be able to raise as the opposition from the central government.
Thomas Hobbes was an early modern philosopher who put forth the idea of a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people. This was different than previous views which held that governments (kings) got their authority directly from God.
Hobbes published a famous work called<em> Leviathan</em> in 1651. The title "Leviathan" comes from a biblical word for a great and mighty beast. Hobbes believed government is formed by people for the sake of their personal security and stability in society. In Hobbes' view, once the people put a king (or other leader in power), then that leader needs to have supreme power (like a great and mighty beast). Hobbes' view of the natural state of human beings without a government held that people are too divided and too volatile as individuals -- everyone looking out for his own interests. So for security and stability, authority and the power of the law needs to be in the hands of a powerful ruler like a king or queen. And so people willingly enter a social contract in which they live under a government that provides stability and security for society.
Probably the most famous set of lines from Hobbes' Leviathan book describes what he saw as the natural state of human affairs without government -- one in which every individual had freedom, but that meant it was a situation of "war of all against all," or we might say, every man for himself. Hobbes wrote:
-
<em>In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
</em>
<span>#1 was made up of World War I veterans and their families.
#2 </span><span>Philip LaFollette - Benito Mussolini</span>
Although you did not specify the civilizations you should compare Hammurabi's code with, here I leave relevant points about the code that may help you:
- Hammurabi's code is a collection of laws carved in a stone pillar during the Babylonian emperor Hammurabi's realm. After conquering the land within the Mesopotamian valley, he needed to unify the territory of his empire under the same laws. It is the first written code of laws.
- As laws were written, judges could not change them at the moment. This was a guarantee of justice for citizens. Other civilizations like the Romans and Hebrews also had written codes of laws.
- The code includes mainly a list of crimes and punishments established for them. The punishments defer according to the social rank of the victim and the criminal.
- Punishments could be payments in species or metals, but also corporal, following the "eye for an eye" criteria of justice, or Tallion's law. This concept of justice can also be found in old Hebrew tradition, and in the Quran.
You can learn more about Hammurabi's code in the link below:
brainly.com/question/13117286
#SPJ4
