Why did Prime Minister Nehru's decision to invade the Portuguese colony of Goa, put President Kennedy in a difficult position?

Nehru's attack on Goa would weaken capitalist forces worldwide, facilitating the spread of communism. This hindered the policy advocated by Kennedy.

Explanation:

Nehru was the prime minister of India and in addition to having to defend the country from the communist threat that was growing because of China and Russia, he had to defend the country from European colonialism.

The Goa region, in Inida, was still dominated and occupied by the Portuguese, forcing Nehru to order an attack to be made in that region, so that the Portuguese could be expelled. President Kennedy saw this as a major threat to capitalist forces, as Portuguese was a capitalist ally and India too. If a capitalist country provoked another capitalist country, it would make capitalism seen as a weak policy and incapable of promoting peace. This would allow communism to move forward with great force.

a.

congress passed laws allowing for free passage between states.

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