Question

The operation of the Roman government provided a model for the United States government. How is the government of the United States similar to the government structure of Rome? How is it different?Select a leader in government today. Select one Roman ruler and compare and contrast the two leaders. How are the leaders alike? How are they different?Justinian Code has unquestionably formed the basis for many codes of law in countries around the world today. Do you think the laws of today in the United States are more strict than those laws of Roman time? Provide examples to support your

Answer 1

can someone help me put this as Discussion plz

Answer 2

like answer them then put it as a discussion i did the points

Answer 3

@austin_coleman

Answer 4

im woking on it hold on im refreshing my memory .....

Answer 5

ok lol

Answer 6

here is one part ...
The Roman government is very civilized, just like ours. Julius Caesar was the first to establish the Empire, but was not called the First Real Emperor. Augustus Caesar was actually was called that title. They went from a monarchy to a republic to a empire (dictatorship). They had well planed communities and so do we, how their consuls ran the empire is very similar to how the president and/or mayor runs the country/town.

Answer 7

ok

Answer 8

what to president do you want me to use ???

Answer 9

btw did she message you ???

Answer 10

yeah she did i msg her back and then she got off

Answer 11

ohh ok thanks :)

Answer 12

what to president do you want me to use ???

Answer 13

idc up to u

Answer 14

lol i was asking because i wanted you to give them to me and then i will do the research and get back to you

Answer 15

Republic
Empire
Patricians
Plebeians
Aristocrat
Democracy
Justinian Code

is this what ur asking for lol

Answer 16

@austin_coleman

Answer 17

kind of i want to know what american president and what roman leader you want me to compare ???

Answer 18

they dont give me anything but that

Answer 19

so do you want me to compare and contrast democracies and empires ???

Answer 20

sure

Answer 21

lol ok .... and i told her i didnt know what you wanted to talk about ;)

Answer 22

beacca:I know :)I feel the same about him..I feel so lucky to have him with me

Answer 23

awee did she really say that ???....

Answer 24

The only comparable thing in Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic is that bills were voted on by popular assemblies. For the rest they were completely different.

Athens' democracy was direct. This means that people did not elect representatives. Bills were not voted by something like a US congress, but by the people who gathered in the people's assembly. Courts were seen as exercising the will of the people. They were not professional. There were no presiding judges. Jurors received no legal direction and there were no lawyers. Parties represented themselves. For private litigation the victims prosecuted. For public cases anyone could prosecute because they were community cases. Jury panels were large, from 201 to 501. At one point courts became able to override the assembly. the court could block matters to be put put to the assembly before the vote and approved bills could be put for review by the court, which could annul it and penalise the proposer. If the court approved, the bill did not go back to the assembly. The court could also annul a law passed by the assembly. Someone who lost a vote could prosecute both the proposers of the law and the law itself. From 403 BC laws were not made by the assembly, but by juries. The executive did not have political power. It oversaw administration, but did not play a part in policy making. It executed the wished of the assembly as determined by its vote.

Rome did not have something like a US congress either. Bills were voted on by the people in the popular in assemblies, such as the assembly of the soldiers, the assembly of the tribes and the plebeian council. Bills were originally proposed by the consuls (see below), but became increasingly the initiatives of the plebeian tribunes, the representatives of the plebeians. They were not officers of state. Trials were conducted originally by the consuls and then by the praetors who acted as a chief justice and could command an army and became the second highest officers of state. They were advised by legal experts (jurists). The assembly of the soldiers and the assembly of the tribes acted as courts of appeal until Sulla instituted a special jury for this in 82 BC.
The senate wielded enormous power, but was not an elected body. It originally, was composed of aristocrats and former senior offers of state. Later it was composed solely of former offers of state, both senior and junior. The senate was the political stronghold of the aristocracy. The executive was composed by elected magistrates (officers of state). This executive was not a centralised like a cabinet or administration. The five types of officers of state (the consuls, praetors, censors, who were senior magistrates and the aediles and quaestors who were junior magistrates) acted independently within the remit of their offices. The consuls were the two annually elected heads of the city and the army. Thus, the military was not separated from civilian authority and there was not a separate chief of staff. Officers of state of the same rank could veto each other, and magistrates of higher rank could veto magistrates of lower rank.

Answer 25

did u copy and past that or type it word for word or what i dont want to get in troble for copywright