The major difference between absolutism in prussia and france was that

The major difference between absolutism in prussia and france was that in Prussia there was a strong middle class, limited nobility and a well-developed medieval monarchy while in France there was a weak middle class and strong nobility.

Absolute rule in France meant that the power of the monarch was, in theory, unlimited except by divine law or by what was called ‘natural law’. In an absolute society, the only person who could change the powers of the monarch was the monarch him/herself. As such, it is difficult to think in terms of an absolute monarch diluting his/her own authority and power.

For those on the receiving end of absolutism, the army played a key role. In absolutist states, the army invariably collected taxes; a large part of this revenue was invested in the army which got larger and more powerful; a larger army was capable of becoming even more effective at collecting taxes which were then further invested in the army. In this way, the people were trapped: they paid their taxes to a body that expanded as a result and that made it an even better collector of revenue.

Prussia was a conglomeration. Its unity wholly depended on the ruling princes and whatever institutions they could create and maintain.Like many other German states of the late 17th and 18th centuries, Prussia had been damaged by domestic and foreign armies. Depopulation was the major problem. The total wealth of society and its productive capacity had dropped drastically. Every prince had to be very concerned with creating wealth, and needed an up-to-date, well-disciplined, well-supplied army.One of best sources for goals and attitudes of German governments are the police ordinance recently investigated by Marc Raeff. Pioneered by Charles V in the 16th c. Ordinances attempted to ensure that princely domains would enjoy good order in the broadest sense.

establish villages

explanation:

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