Person who opposes another in a contest, battle, etc
2. (Anatomy) anatomy an opponent muscle
adj
3. opposite, as in position
4. (Anatomy) anatomy (of a muscle) bringing two parts into opposition
5. opposing; contrary
[C16: from Latin oppōnere to oppose, from ob- against + pōnere to place]
Nullification is where a state has a right to disagree with a federal law they think is unconstitutional and not correct, and no longer abide by it. Nullification would have weakened the Union because states would no longer have to agree or act on certain laws, causing obvious conflict within the state and conflict between Congress and the state. The state would no longer be unified and a quarrel between people in the state, the states, and between the state and the Congress would deepen and would most likely lead to war and weaken the Union.
Answer:
The 1860 Constitutional Union Convention nominated a ticket led by former Senator John Bell of Tennessee. Despite minimal support in the South (Lincoln's name was not on the ballot in 10 Southern states), he won a plurality of the popular vote (40%) and a majority of the electoral vote.
Explanation:
Absolute chaos is what we would define as anarchy; it is essentially the reverse of order. What makes an anarchy worse would be the shocking lack of a robust legal system because there can be no laws in a society built on complete chaos, but if you're talking about a government based on anarchy, it would be a system where there is no state identity and no real central government. Somalia, to some extent, serves as the most prevalent illustration of why a government founded on anarchy is a horrible concept. Although there is a central government, its power over its territory varies. Certain sections are under the influence of the militant group Al Shabab, and the Somaliland region is attempting to declare its independence from the federal government. The country is rife with a milder but no less deadly type of anarchy due to the absence of a strong central leadership.
Anarchic societies where every individual is equally empowered are unsustainable. The individuals quickly cluster into tribal units, and without some overriding authority, it’s impossible to stop that from happening. The tribal units (or gangs, if you prefer) are run by warlords who keep each other in check until one of them gains a decisive advantage over the others, and then you’ve got the beginnings of a state.
This drama has played out countless times in the course of human history, and is still playing out in the criminal underworld to the extent that it can. That extent is limited by the fact that now there is an overriding authority with enforceable power, the legitimate state.
Thank you,
Eddie
Answer:
in my opinion depending on the conflict. this can be because of the interest you get because of the conflict or the need to share an opinion. maybe it could be looking for options for the conflict. or it can simply be for entertainment. some people just like being in conflict simply because it can entertain them. others because they like looking into it and maybe solving it and looking into variety of questions and possible answers to conflicts
