NEED NOW Which phrase best describes non-governmental international organizations?

groups consisting of representatives from many states or nations coming together for common goals

groups of individuals and/or private corporations coming together and trying to solve global problems

groups that blend public and private resources and channel those funds into collective change globally

groups representing the agencies or departments of a single national government working to achieve diplomacy

couples could only have one child to reduce the population growth.

social contract theory basically says that all individuals are born equal, and provided a god given right to consent to be governed. american government is based of this

thomas hobbes and john locke said that we are selfish, individualistic, and constantly at war with each other, therefore we need to be controlled. 

government is defined as the legitimate use of force to control human behavior within territorial boundaries, here comes in hobbes and locke.

hobbes takes the part about controlling human behavior. while locke takes the part of legitimate use of force, since force is not legitimate unless there is consent of the people. 

there are basically 3 goals of the government: 1) maintain order by protecting life and property. 2) providing public goods, those which are typically not provided by the public sector, such as roads and education. 3) promote equality be it political, opportunist or outcome equality. 

powers  are  denied  to the  national governmentin three distinct ways: some  powers, such as the  power  to levy duties on exports or prohibit the freedom of religion, speech, press, or assembly, are expressly  denied  to the  national government  in the  constitution.

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