Need help with this assignment

In 1945, Japan was cornered. American forces were in full swing towards the main islands of Japan, gaining Japanese positions on the Pacific islands. The main problem in this situation was that the Japanese did not admit to surrendering under any circumstances, but rather fought until total annihilation, either their own or the enemy's. Thus, for example, battles such as that of Iwo Jima or Okinawa lasted for months, and involved tens of thousands of deaths of American soldiers, in addition to those of almost the entire Japanese forces.

This demonstrated to the American government that a battle in mainland Japan would be a massacre that could lead to millions of lost lives. For this reason, the Truman government made the decision to carry out a fast, precise and powerful attack that, causing large amounts of casualties and destruction, would send a message to the Japanese leaders urging them to surrender, thus avoiding the millions of casualties that could occur through conventional warfare on Japanese territory.

Therefore, the moral justification for the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to avoid a far greater number of deaths than those that would occur as a consequence of the attack.

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

i dont have that book