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 to illustrate your answer.

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

The difficulties I think might arise when trying to understand ideas from the past, especially when those ideas are so different from our modern thinking are that people cannot understand the circumstances that were present in past events in order to understand the meaning of those events. If we want to understand how and why things happened in the past without knowing those circumstances, then our view would be biased or incomplete. Primary resources show a complete picture of the period they are from but in a partial way. You have to connect the dots, the stories of that time in the past to have the full perspective of the events.

The example would be the following. If you try to understand the reasons that led to the American Civil War just from the perspective of the southern states, your information would be biased. You have to know both sides of the story to have the full view. Again, understand the circumstances will help you to get the right idea.

b) a state law could be declared illegal if it contradicted the constitution.

explanation:

the conflict of this case originated when james w. mcculloch, a cashier of the baltimore branch of the second bank of the united states that the congress had chartered in 1816, refused to pay a tax imposed by the maryland state.

in the case, the state of maryland appealed that the establishment of a second bank was unconstitutional since the constitution didn't say anything about granting that power to congress. however, the case determined that even if such right wasn't specifically stated in the constitution, it was part of the "implied powers" of the government enunciated in article i, section 8.

the case also eliminated maryland's legislation to impose taxes to a national bank, asserting that even though the states retained the power of taxation, the constitution's laws are supreme and can not be controlled by the states, therefore, if a state law contradicts the constitution, it should be declared illegal.

explanation:

b

explanation: