I think the text is called the Tanakh, but they also have some other books as well.
They claimed that Chinese soldiers had sabotaged the railway, and attacked the Chinese army (which had just executed a Japanese spy). The Chinese army did not fight back because it knew that the Japanese were just wanting an exvuse to invade Manchuria.
Hope it helps!
Option A. If a historian takes a source out of context, she is likely to:
A. misunderstand the intended meaning of historical actions.
<h3>What does it mean to take things out of context?</h3>
This is used to refer to the fact that a person is taking what is being said outside of the meaning that the message is supposed to convey. It has to do with not being able to understand what is said and interpreting it accordingly.
In this situation, when the historian takes things out of their context, then it means that they would not understand the true meaning of the happenings of that period.
Read more on historical events here: brainly.com/question/17040564
#SPJ1
Answer: There’s no grey area with justice.
Explanation: According the this ancient wisdom, what is just comes simply from defining what is proper and setting that apart from what is not. The proper receives praise and the improper receives punishment. Being just means trying to always act properly.
Correct answer:
<h2>Limited government</h2>
The 10th Amendment puts limits on the powers of the federal government. It reserves powers for the states (and for the people themselves) any powers not specifically designated to the federal government in the United States Constitution. Any laws and powers exercised by the states still must be in accord with what is stated in the US Constitution, however.
For some historical context, we might also consider that the original framers of the US Constitution thoughts that statements such as the 10th Amendment -- and all of the first 10 Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights -- were already inherent in the Constitution as it was written. They had composed a constitution that intentionally placed limits on the federal government. So, stating such a limit in an amendment seemed like a repetition of what was already apparent in the Constitution itself. As noted by the National Constitution Center, "The Constitution’s Framers thought that a bill of rights was appropriate for an unlimited government, but not for a limited one like the national government created by the Constitution. The Constitution accordingly sought to secure liberty through enumerations of powers to the government rather than through enumerations of rights to the people."
Nevertheless, to assure those who wanted the rights of the people specifically listed and protected, Amendments 1 through 10 were added to the Constitution as a Bill of Rights to affirm those protections.
