Compare and contrast the daily life of jews under greek and roman rule. consider how greek and roman rule affected the jewish peoples' ability to practice their religion. describe how conflicts eventually devoloped between the jews and the ruling groups

Well, let's start with Greece, when Judia got invaded by the Greeks they  weren't allowed to worship there own god. The Greeks also filled there temple with items of there gods. It stayed like that until they revolted in 167. BC with the help of Judas Maccabees. After that the Jews got rid of all of the statues of Greek gods and goddesses in there temple "The second temple". Inside there was only so much oil to lit there candles for praying but with all of the oil they were able to keep the candles burning for 8 days creating Hanukkah. Then in 63. BC Judia got invaded by the Romans. they renamed Judia to Judaya, and gave them a Jewish king (Herod) and let them continue there religion. After all of this this 4 Jewish tribes formed. They where the Sadducee the Pharisees, the Zealots, and the Essene.  In 66. AD the Zealots tried to get there land back, they had some success against a small roman force, but then got destroyed by bigger groups. So then in returned the roman king killed thousands of Jews, Rome retook Judaya, and destroyed the second temple. He also renamed Judaya to Pastism just to pis them off.

That's enough info for you?

-Fortnight_Fan

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