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:
Because they felt that the rights of Americans needed to be laid out more clearly and amendments needed to be added and things needed to be altered, hence- The Bill of Rights written by James Maddison. aka Jemmy.
Explanation:
Answer:
Federalist Party
Explanation:
The Constitution was proposed by Alexander Hamilton, one of the most famous Federalists in America. Hamilton and his party were very adamant about the constitution being ratified in all U.S. states, even without The Bill of Rights, something Thomas Jefferson and the Federalists were highly against. The Federalist party and it's members were the main writers of the Constitution and heavily pushed for it's speedy ratification in the new country.
Answer:
A law -making branch of government.
Explanation:
Because they make law and therefore have more responsibility on what happens to our planet or U.S and in what can or cannot happen while the only places that have kings are the U.K, Zealand, Austria.
