I believe this would be true considering the had lost the civil war
Answer:
1) first a bill goes to the house and is voted on, if passed then it moves onto senate
2) in senate it is again voted on if passed it goes to the president, if not passed then goes back to the house where changes are made to the bill
3)the president can sign the bill into law or veto the bill. If vetoed it goes back to the senate and changes are made (only 10 vetoed bills became laws, very rare to have a law)
4) hope this helps!
Answer:
The answer is "Greek"
Explanation:
Social contract theory, almost as old as philosophy itself, is the view that people's good or potentially political commitments are needy upon an agreement or arrangement among them to shape the general public in which they live. Socrates use something very like an Social contract theory to disclose to Crito why he should stay in jail and acknowledge capital punishment. Nonetheless, Social contract theory is properly connected with current good and political hypothesis and is given its first full work and guard by Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the most popular defenders of this gigantically persuasive hypothesis, which has been one of the most predominant speculations inside good and political hypothesis since the commencement of the cutting edge West. In the 20th century, good and political hypothesis recaptured philosophical force because of John Rawls' Kantian rendition of implicit understanding hypothesis, and was trailed by new examinations of the subject by David Gauthier and others.
All the more as of late, thinkers from alternate points of view have offered new reactions of implicit understanding hypothesis. Specifically, women's activists and race-cognizant thinkers have contended that Social contract theory is in any event an inadequate image of our good and political lives, and may truth be told disguise a portion of the manners by which the agreement is itself parasitical upon the oppression of classes of people.
Answer:
The position of the United States toward Latin America in the 1800s can be characterized as protective.
Explanation:
At the beginning of the 19th century, when Latin America was beginning to become independent, the United States decided not to intervene in the politics of the new Latin American countries. Instead it promoted the idea of expelling any European claim from the continent, in a doctrine that was called Monroe Doctrine, whose main phrase was: "Americas for the Americans".
