After the romans ended the jewish revolt, judea became a(n) a. christian state b. roman province c. independent republic d. roman military base

B.  Roman province

Explanation:

The first Judeo-Roman war, also called the great Jewish revolt, was the first of the three main revolts of the Jews of the province of Judea against the Roman Empire (Judeo-Roman wars), and took place between the years 66 and 73 —The second was the war of Kitos (115-117) and the third was the rebellion of Bar Kojba (132-135). It began in the year 66, because of the religious tensions between Greeks and Jews. It ended when the Roman legions, commanded by Titus, in the year 70 besieged and destroyed Jerusalem, where they sacked and burned the Temple of Jerusalem, demolished the main Jewish fortresses, especially Masada, in the year 73, and enslaved or massacred a large part of the Jewish population.

After the revolt, all of Judea became a ruined province, with a Jerusalem reduced to rubble and the Temple destroyed. According to Judeo-Roman author Flavio Josefo, approximately 1,100,000 Jews died and 97,000 were captured and enslaved; according to current estimates the death toll between 600,000 and 1,300,000 Jews. Historically, the defeat of the Jews was one of the causes of the Diaspora - numerous Jews dispersed after losing their State and some of them were sold as slaves in different places of the Roman Empire -, and one of the greatest catastrophes in Jewish history, which ended the history of the Jewish state in ancient times. On the other hand, from the religious point of view, the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple was the most important spiritual loss of the Jews.

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

roosevelt essentially took the opposite approach as hoover in taking on the great depression. herbert hoover thought that america and its economy could naturally recover from the depression in due course, so he adamantly restrained the federal government from intervening on behalf of the people affected. on the other hand, roosevelt dramatically increased employment by expanding the federal government and establishing agencies that would aid in relieving some of the country's worst problems.