No clue about the constitution, since I am not american, but it would be logical to think that the religous can rule as long as they don't break other human rights.
TheBigMike
joined 2 years ago
I mean it kinda does with the whole "freedom of expression" thing it has.
I could be wrong on this, but that's how I interperted it.
Because of those pesky human rights that mandate "freedom of religion" or whatever.
Could you elaborate, since I have absolutely no clue what connections significant enough you are making to say this.
Before agriculture people were like that, but as people settled down it created a class system. Then people got more powerful and such and states began to be created.
During this time (Around 4000bce and 400ce) feudalism wasn't really a thing, but after the Western Roman Empire fell around 400ce the power vacuum it created lead to the creation of feudalism. This was because of several factors, but I can't remember them all right now.
But money did exist even before the creation feudalism, since the Romans and the Egyptians did have money. Even in Mesopotamia currency was used. And even if money didn't exist trade was still being done with valueable things like resources and other commodities, which lead to those things becoming a de-facto currency.
So basically pre-agriculture was like tribes that shared their stuff and such, but after agriculture not so much. Of course this isn't a one-answer-fits-all thing, since there are always exceptions.
Sorry for the long ramble. I just got really into writing this thing. Also I could be wrong on some things, since I am writing from memory.
Mainly mercantilism which just means that everyone wants to only export and importing stuff is literally the worst thing in the world. Mercantilism also had a lot more state restrictions on it compared to capitalism.
Feudalism mainly died out in the 1400's when more of the power was centralised to the king instead of their vassals.
Let's hope we have better luck next time I guess.
Oh damn, an article containing a topic about Russia and Cuba. I hope this post will contain a civil conversation about the topic without it derailing into a giant fighting pit about the United States.
From what I've read depleted uranium is not proven to cause cancer, nor is it not proven (With the exception that you inhale it or eat it).
In Iraq it's still up to debate if it causes cancer or birth defects, since burning buildings and other burning stuff also causes a lot of nasty things to humans.
From what I've read they were also used in Bosnia, and they haven't had similiar effects to Iraq.
So let the Ukrainians have their depleted uranium.
If this happens they'll do the "A person who swears to tell the truth and nothing but the truth says what" ordeal. If that doesn't work they will just let you leave
Yeah... it is what it is I guess...