Introduction
The U.S. Constitution parcels out foreign affairs powers to both the executive and legislative branches. It grants some powers, like command of the military, exclusively to the president and others, like the regulation of foreign commerce, to Congress, while still others it divides among the two or simply does not assign.
The separation of powers has spawned a great deal of debate over the roles of the president and Congress in foreign affairs, as well as over the limits on their respective authorities. “The Constitution, considered only for its affirmative grants of power capable of affecting the issue, is an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy,” wrote constitutional scholar Edward S. Corwin in 1958.
Foreign policy experts say that presidents have accumulated power at the expense of Congress in recent years as part of a pattern in which, during times of war or national emergency, the executive branch tends to eclipse the legislature.
Friction by Design
The periodic tug-of-war between the president and Congress over foreign policy is not a by-product of the Constitution, but rather one of its core aims. The drafters distributed political power and imposed checks and balances to ward off monarchical tyranny embodied by Britain’s King George III. They also sought to remedy the failings of the Articles of Confederation, the national charter adopted in 1777, which many regarded as a form of legislative tyranny. “If there is a principle in our Constitution, indeed in any free Constitution, more sacred than any other, it is that which separates the legislative, executive, and judicial powers,” wrote James Madison, U.S. representative from Virginia, in the Federalist papers.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Industrialization not only changed the life of many people and transformed the way goods were produced, but also created a new wave of Imperialism in the 20th century and pushed the world into World War I
Industrialized nations used technological and economic advantages to grow their empires through the mass production of goods.
A good example can be how industrialized nations such as Great Britain exploited the many raw materials and natural resources in Africa, during the colonization period known as "the Scramble for Africa."
Large industries in Britain, France, or Germany, fabricated goods, and then they exported these products back to their colonies and other parts of the world. That is how they made a lot of money, exploiting underdeveloped regions and exploiting workers.
Industrialized nation's quest for larger empires indeed contributed to their decision to join the war in that their "hunger" for power and control was never satisfied and they always desired more to impose their rule over other European countries.
His first task was to combat the worst recession since the Great Depression. Regan promised the “Reagan Revolution” focusing on reducing government spending, taxes, and regulation
The 10th amendment said that powers not delegated specifically to the federal government would be reserved to the states.
The anti-federalists argued against a strong national government, and they wanted states to have power in the government.