“the vietnam war was a turning point in the political and economic division in the united states.” support, modify, or refute this statement.

Not only because the U.S.A. didn't walk out victorious from that conflict, but also because in the 60s there were multiple undergoing circumstances inside the country simultaneously.

That moment in time shifted the country morally, culturally, socially, politically and economically; in spite of being a foreign dispute, it fostered domestic revolt altering the American character at its core, to the point of been labeled as the worst foreign policy calamity in history. Hence "The Vietnam War" was an extensive turning point in the United States.

The Vietnam War was a turning point, but in retreat, that is, it was a negative event that marked the history of the United States, both politically and economically because of the great economic investment and the high number of victims that country had against Vietnam. Worst of all were the results of the war, which was lost by the United States. This caused among the North Americans distrust of the government since this nation has always been considered the most powerful nation in the world.

a) the colonists began to see themselves as different from people in britain.

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