The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Do you consider Bishop Eusebius’s account to be reliable?
No, really not.
The reason why because his account had created many controversies.
Eusebius has been known as the official historian of the church. He participated in the Council of Nice in 314, organized by Roman Emperor Constantine to revise the religious or historic documents that would end up being in the Bible.
So Eusebius based most of his comments on personal opinions and other historic document's interpretations. It is difficult to say that he did the proper research and had reliable sources. During the Nicea Council, a group of Bishops decided what documents had to be part of the Bible and which not, based on their own criteria. That is not a good indicator of the validity of the documents included, even less we can consider those as sacred.
Reconstruction Constitution guaranteed all men including the previous slaves <span>constitutional freedom in the United States. But then the reconstruction was designed in order to put non-minority citizens into power (such as only allowing the white men to vote and only provide non-minority the opportunity to get mortgages)
</span>
It was the name of the boundary that divided Europe at the end of WW2
Answer: Reliance on legal precedent
Explanation:
Reliance on legal precedent should be a key factor in court's ruling since if stakeholders cant's success on mediating their reliance on precedent forfeit, then any claim they'do therefore, it'll be taken under stare decisis doctrine. This comes from a judicial theory that states: when a pronouncement has built enough reliance, then a presumption against adjudicative change must follow.
