Ipaliwanag ang tunggalian sa tao vs sa sarili na naganap sa nobelang GAPO

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

answer: both considered peasants valued members of society.

explanation: the ancient chinese and indian empires were large asian empires that had the same problems with other big empires, they had to work hard and sometimes fight in order to keep them united, they both relied heavily on their capacity to trade and to send strange and rare items to europe, and had the father as the head of the house hold in both societies, but they didn´t considered pleasants as valued members of their society, they were the bottom of the social pyramid in both of their societies.