It is the country's principal waterway, and its basin is China's great granary and contains nearly one-third of the national population.Please give Brainly if I’m right
Answer:
In the landmark U.S. v. New York Times case, the Court ruled that the government could not, through "prior restraint," block publication of any material unless it could prove that it would "surely" result in "direct, immediate, and irreparable" harm to the nation.
Answer:
Explanation:
1. There are few theories on why the books of Maccabees are not part of Jewish scriptures.
The first one is the date; it is believed that the Council of Jamnia only took books that existed for a long time and were unofficially considered canonical when canonizing Hebrew Bible. The events in the old testament go from the Creation to the book of Esther, happening during the rebuilding of the Temple. For them, The Maccabean Revolt was the recent event, happening after these mentioned ones.
The more probable reason, however, lies in the separation of Judaism on two fractures – <em>the Pharisees</em> and<em> theSadducees</em>. While Pharisees lean towards ideas of oral law and tradition, Sadducees reject them and follow the written Torah as the only canon. The Maccabees are believed to be descendant from Pharisees, and quite possibly excluded from canonization by a council of Jamnia because of this reason.
However, the books of Maccabees are still valuable historical account, the one because of which Hanukah is celebrated.
2. Because of the evidence presented above, the answer is - Yes, it is true that the first and second Maccabee books were written as part the Jewish history.
If it were me, I would say otzi, but I am not sure.
<span>Apparently, the supporters of the
exclusionary rule argue that the rule is the one effective deterrent against
police misconduct because according to them, the rule must be preserved in
order to guarantee that the constitutional rights are must be honored.
Moreover, in contrast to those who want to see the exclusionary rule abolished
argue that the treat of civil lawsuits should be enough to deter police
misconduct because they believed that the rule costs are too much and it
operates to precent juries from considering highly relevant evident in which it
sometimes operated to allow the guilty to go free. </span>
