explain how more advanced civilizations were able to develope techonology that allowed their citizens to move away from the river

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

More advanced civilizations were able to develop technology that allowed their citizens to move away from the river and protected them from flooding.

This technology first, allowed civilization to predict the flooding of the rivers, and then to take advantage of the flooding to increase crop production.

Let's not forget that ancient civilizations such as Sumeria, settled in the middle of two rivers: the Euphrates and Tigris. This represented many advantages to farming but also had its risks, basically, flooding. In the case of ancient Egypt, they settled in the banks of the Nile River, and they were one of the most successful civilizations that developed the kind of technology to avoid disasters due to flooding, and instead, growing good crops. The flooding of the Nile left rich soil to grow quality crops that they traded with other towns. The Egyptians also built underground channels to take the course of the water in times of flooding. Thes minimized the risk of massive flooding of their cities.

the ones that are losing there jobs

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