When evaluating past eras, historians depend on primary documents and other resources to understand events and cultures. for instance, it would be difficult to evaluate why people once thought earth was at the center of the solar system unless you analyzed documents from the time in which the idea was relevant.. what difficulties do you think might arise when trying to understand ideas from the past, especially when those ideas are so different from our modern thinking? do you think primary resources show a complete picture of the period they are from? give an example or two as your answer.. @kfins99

We have difficulty understanding the ideas of the past because today we are an evolved society with a lot of access to information, which makes our knowledge wider than the knowledge of past society. For this reason, ideas from the past may seem archaic and unreasonable when compared to our current thinking.

Primary resources do not show a complete picture of the reason people in the past had these "archaic" thoughts, it just shows what those thoughts were and at what point in history they occurred

both are true, the congress does have the power to create banks, even if this power is not specifically described in the constitution, since there is nothing restricting it and there is power given to the congress to make "all laws which shall be necessary and proper". maryland was not allowed to tax a branch of the national bank operating there, and the supreme court decided that no state could. both of these topics were discussed in a decision of the mcculloch v. maryland case in 1819.

explanation:

a trial judge has broad powers in his courtroom. the judge's decision is usually final for the duration of the trial, and the party's one special type of witness is an expert witness.