Choose three laws from hammurabi’s code and describe who is involved, what each law describes to do or not do, the consequences for breaking these laws, and how—if at all—the agricultural revolution may have influenced these laws.

i really really really really really really dont know

you should just come up with the best answers you can nobody is perfect.

explanation: i just want to

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is

the vast majority of ballots have been counted nearly two weeks after one of the biggest political upsets in modern u.s. history catapulted donald trump to the presidency.

estimates show more than 58 percent of eligible voters went to the polls during the 2016 election, nearly breaking even with the turnout rate set during the last presidential election in 2012, even as the final tallies in states like california continue to be calculated, according to statistics collected by the u.s. elections project.

but among those figures were stark contrasts in key states that swing the election to trump — in ohio, wisconsin, iowa, michigan and elsewhere — indicating the president-elect’s leap from long-shot candidate to the most powerful political position in the world may have happened in part because of apathy toward hillary clinton’s candidacy, especially among the democratic base, several political scientists and organizations monitoring voter turnout told the pbs newshour.

while clinton is leading the popular vote by more than 1.5 million over trump as of sunday, she trails president obama’s 2012 totals by more than 2 million ballots — a chasm that may have cost her the election, said david becker, co-founder of the center for election and innovation and research.

“several million voters didn’t come out to vote,” becker said. “which is telling me that this idea of the trump wave, a huge number of voters shifting over to trump, is certainly not the story.”