1. To what extent did international events lead to the Louisiana Purchase in 1803? (answer all parts) A. Choose ONE of the following and explain why your choice represents the event that led to the
Louisiana Purchase...
- U. S. and Spain sign Pinckney's Treaty in 1795
- France and Spain sign the secret Treaty of Ildefonso in 1300
- Toussaint L'Ouveture leads a rebellion against the French in Santo Domingo
B. Contrast your choice against ONE of the other options, demonstrating why that option was not as
significant as your choice...
C. Evaluate the way in which international events, including the choice you selected in (A), contributed
to the United States purchasing Louisiana in 1803.

yes based on alexanders actions he deserved the title of "the great". his empire covered about 3,000 miles and he was able to establish the empire over a 13 year period of time. he was able to conquer many different places. he also defeated the persians. he conquered egypt and developed a city and named it after himself.

hhghkkggcvbkkjvhkiuvvb

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

if you're talking about (ww2) they went bankrupt and their currency was worth nothing

explanation: