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
pentagon [3]
3 years ago
6

“Might Makes Right” Give me an example where this saying is not true.

History
1 answer:
Finger [1]3 years ago
5 0
Https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-examples-from-history-of-might-makes-right this link can help you
You might be interested in
What famous document made most of the area along the mississippi the property of the united states?
Ilya [14]
<span>Louisiana Purchase. Bought by the United States in 1803, the Louisiana Purchase was a large territory owned by France that covers approximately 828,000 square miles of land.</span>
5 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
5 points
faust18 [17]

Answer:

Business Cycle

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What could be a result of a government not adhering to the rule of law? (Select all that apply.)
soldi70 [24.7K]

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.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What are two things the Spanish were focusing on with the natives in New Spain
Simora [160]

Answer:

i think ur answer would be either changing there religion in to their own and i know that they made them slaves to make them find gold for them

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
What is one way the patricians had more power than plebeians
g100num [7]

Answer:

Patricians had more power than Plebeians as they could own land

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How would Europeans justify their role in the slave trade?
    6·1 answer
  • The First Punic War was fought over _____ .
    15·2 answers
  • After meeting with Soviet and British leaders, President Truman left Potsdam believing that.
    15·2 answers
  • Why did Justice O’Connor disagreed with the ruling
    12·3 answers
  • What is a land bridge?
    7·1 answer
  • What provided job opportunities for African Americans during World War I
    8·2 answers
  • Pls help me I suck at history
    9·1 answer
  • Who ruled over the Mesopotamian river civilization
    9·1 answer
  • Identify the statements that are consistent with the "social contract ". a. The fundamental rights enjoyed by citizens under lib
    13·2 answers
  • Can the government stop you from attending a Communist Party meeting?
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!