We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
(2) that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
(3) that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government….
—the declaration of independence, 1776
what concept is best described by the third sentence?

The third sentence is a clear example of the concept of social contract.

Explanation:

The idea of social contract became important during the Enlightenment because it established that the power lies in the people and not in the figurehead of government.  The French writer Rousseau is one of the Enlightenment thinkers that popularized the term.  This concept goes on to explain that if the government is not serving its people and is not acting in the people's best interest, then the people have the right to remove it and place a new government in its place.  This can clearly be seen in the third sentence.

george calvert wanted maryland to be a colony where could live safely. because georgia's founders wanted a colony of small farms rather than large plantations, they originally banned under british law in the 1700s, people who owed money could be

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