Use the map below to answer the following question: Map of Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia labeled, Growth of Rome 500 BCE - 107 CE. The darkest green color is labeled, Original Roman Republic (500 BCE). The darkest green area on the map is the small area around the city of Rome. Another green color is labeled, Imperial gains by 264 BC. This green color on the map is most of the Italian peninsula. Another green color is labeled, Imperial gains by 146 BCE. This color on the map includes most of Spain, Sicily and Sardinia, Greece, and part of Northern Africa around Carthage. A light green color is labeled, Imperial gains by 44 BC. The light green area on the map extends to Gaul, Asia Minor, Syria, and Numidia in North Africa. A light yellow color on the map is labeled, Extent of Roman Empire by 107 AD. This color on the map includes all of the previous areas, an extends to Britain, as well as further inland in Europe and Asia, and the entire North African coast.

Which statement explains why Britain became a part of the Roman Empire much later than nearby Gaul?

the correct answer is “opportunity cost”. opportunity cost is what a company misses out because it decided in one option over another one. in this case, the company decided to invest in building a factory so it gave up another possible benefit or profit in order to achieve success with the factory.  

trade-off is not the correct answer since it is a situation in which you accept losing something in return for benefits in other areas.

and finally, consequence is a general term used to accept what it comes when you make a decision. it can be a positive or negative consequence depending if the decision you took was the correct one.  

from my own personal expirence food stamps has alot this makes it eaiser so we can affod bills and so we can life a better lifestyle not needing to worry about paying actual money to buy food since most people spend 100-300 dollars a month on food so this alot so we can afford other bills and other stuff we need

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

they are best known for the cliff pueblos found throughout arizona, new mexico, colorado and utah. and for their development of desert farming.

hope i

-lavira: )