Many of the finest paintings of ancient india are found in temples. what can you infer about the people of ancient india from this statement? a. they spent most of their time in temples. c. they valued art more than anything else. b. creating art was part of their religions. d. religion was very important to them. select the best answer from the choices provided

d. Religion was very important to them.

Explanation:

The architecture of India is rooted in its history, culture and religion. Indian architecture progressed over time and assimilated the many influences that emerged as a result of India's global flow with other regions of the world throughout its more than two millennia of existence. The architectural methods practiced in India are the result of the examination and implementation of the established constructive traditions and external cultural interactions.The oldest monuments of India are from a recent period compared with those of Chaldea and Egypt and are attributed as much as the fifth century before our era, they are religious and correspond to the Brahman and Buddhist religions prevailing there. There are no known ancient palaces in Indian architecture, since the oldest dating back to the fifteenth century having built the previous ones with low quality material and those that are of Indian art (which are not of Muslim art) are very scarce. The same goes for tombs or funerary monuments that are not religious.

oil! is what i am assuming

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is