When studying , or the history of history, it’s important to realize that every historian presents ideas in a different way. that’s because they have that affect how they think and what they believe. however, good historians use a variety of to make sure their arguments are based on facts and sound evidence.

When studying HISTORIOGRAPHY, or the history of history.

That's the word you're looking for in your description.

Historians themselves are embedded in time periods and cultures, and the times and cultures in which they live influence their understanding and interpretation of the history they record. Historiography, that is, the writing of history, is a field of study in itself, seeing the work of historians within the different contexts from which they were doing their research and writing.  

When studying

HISTORIOGRAPY

, or the history of history, it’s important to realize that every historian presents ideas in a different way. That’s because they have

IDEOLOGIES

that affect how they think and what they believe. However, good historians use a variety of

SOURCES

to make sure their arguments are based on facts and sound evidence.

Explanation:

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