What was the british reaction to the gathering of the Indians of Amritsar

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

monopolies  came to the united states with the colonial administration. the large-scale public works needed to make the new world hospitable to old world immigrants required large companies to carry them out. these companies were granted exclusive contracts for these works by the colonial administrators. even after the american revolution, many of these colonial holdovers still functioned due to the contracts and land

read more on -

it was justfied as english were being brutal to the colonist and they needed to be stopped therfor causing a war but the moral over that is yes it was justifed

the correct answer is the last one accuustomed to millary involvement overseas hope this !