<u><em>The contention
</em></u>
After the rise of communism, the government of the United States also began to support authoritarian regimes that felt they were fighting against movements aligned with communism, including socialist and social democratic movements, including Latin America. Such assistance continued despite the belief expressed by many that this contradicts the political ideals advocated by the United States during the Cold War, while others argued that such plans were executed in the fear that communism will reach Latin America and may begin to consolidate The support was also aimed at ensuring an environment conducive to US corporate purposes abroad, such as the United Fruit Company or Standard Oil, especially when they came under the threat of democratic regimes. Support for authoritarian regimes has been justified under various ideological frameworks, such as the Truman doctrine, Kirkpatrick doctrine or the "war on drugs".
A member of the Democratic Party would hold a strong opinion on equality on all fronts. He would advocate race, religion, gender and sex orientation equality for all, regardless of their social or ethical background. He would also support equal educational opportunities for all. He would support the government's spending on social services ( <em>Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps</em>) and advocate less spending on military issues.
1. Yes i do, cause the government can easily power over the people but as soons as they do that the people will then take back the government there fore the constitution is not used by the government to control us cause if they did we could easily over turn them
2. there take of the constitution under my understanding is that if the government does something that makes the people unhappy they can look back at the constitution and say you are braking this law and now you are being over turned.
3.the social contract says that it obtains to everyone not just the people that arent in some type of government or the richest person ever it obtains to everyone. so his statment reflect cause hes saying that if the government tries to say something to use we can something back and say the constitution says we are allowed to do that or we arent. for example the right to carry a weapon we are but its not because of we like to hunt or go target shooting no its because if the government turns on us we can protect our selfs.
Read more on Brainly.com - brainly.com/question/1137967#readmore