The excerpt from a us political policy was written in 1905 chronic wrongdoing may in america, as elsewhere ultimately require intervention. in the western hemisphere the adherence of the united states to the monroe doctrine may force the united states however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of wrongdoing to the exercise of an international police power this statement was meant to justify which of these policies?

In the period from 1895 to 1905, the legal formation of the basic doctrine of American hegemony and the organization of the American Great Space was completed. The Monroe Doctrine was expanded into the Olney Doctrine (1895) and the addition of Theodore Roosevelt (1904), which directly proclaimed US claims for the right to exercise “international police force” in Latin America. The new US foreign policy doctrine was set out in a note of protest by US Secretary of State  Olney of July 20, 1895 to the British government over its actions against Venezuela. The Olney Doctrine was designed to make 'tremble' not only with England and other European powers, but also the Latin American states themselves, whose interests the United States allegedly defended.

Olney doctrine has become the foundation of US power politics around the world, although the United States still used the Monroe Doctrine for propaganda and mystification of history. In Olney Doctrine, the principles of 1823 were combined with the idea of US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere; further development of the Monroe Doctrine led to its merging with the principles of interventionism.

Explanation:

part a. there were 250 teenagers surveyed (100% of tenagers = 250)therefore 1 % = 250/100 = 2.5 76% = 1% x 76 = 2.5 x 76 = 190 teenagers of the 250 surveyed liked burgerspart b: jane surveyed 25% (which is equal to 50 teenagers, i.e. a quarter of the teenagers surveyed is 50) to get 100% we simply get 4 quarters, i.e. multiply 50 by 4 = 200 teenagers were surveyed by jane. part c: it is impossible to give an example where a percentage is greater than 100%, since, by definition , percentage means "per 100".

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