•the second claim is that the constitution does not place protecting property rights as the centerpiece of the government.

• if property, which was the economic interest of the founders, was paramount in their eyes, why is the constitution so silent on the issue? this clearly shows that the intent of the constitution was not economic.

plz paraphrase this into ur own words u

In order to rewrite a text with your own words -- paraphrase it -- a bigger part of it works better. You need to resume main ideas and "translate" them to your thinking.

- On the other hand, secondly: protection of property rights is not the focus of the government stablished by the Constitution.

- The absence of property on the Constitution illustrates the impossibility to affirm that economic interest of the founders was the main driving force for their actions.

i just need the points

explanation:

the correct answer option is: weapons.

explanation:

tensions rose as the two opposing superpowers competed for 'weapons'.

referring to the cold war (1945-1991), the two superpowers, usa and ussr, experienced a phase of struggle and conflict with each other. these two superpowers considered each other as a threat to their survival and thus opted for policies to strengthen their positions.

the two superpowers never went to war with each other directly but competed for weapons to preserve their positions.