Ineed

the photo shows a newspaper report from 1898 on the sinking of the uss maine.
how could a new point of view historians understand this report?

a) it could them record new evidence related to the event.
b) it could them develop a better understanding of past ideas.
c) it could them preserve older evidence in a new way.
d) it could them disprove all the eyewitness accounts.

The correct answer is B) It could help them develop a better understanding of past ideas.

A new point of view help historians to understand this report in that it could help them develop a better understanding of past ideas.

As new research is done about with historical topic, new or different information can be found that serve historians to compare the official version of the story with the new evidence. This, of course, can change history because new evidence can explain interrogations of the past. That is why it is so important for historians to keep asking questions and develop different angles. For this to happen, they have to be open to hear or see different versions or even opposing versions of what official history has recorded.

answer: because they get bored or smth idk

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