The reason why Henry Cabot Lodge was against joining the League of Nations was he believed that the U.S. should not become involved in the disputes of other nations.
<h3 /><h3>What was Henry Cabot Lodge's reason for opposing the League of Nations?</h3>
Henry Cabot Lodge believed that the U.S. joining the League would mean that it would have to be involved in the affairs of other nations.
He was against this and advocated for a return by the U.S. to the ideals of isolationism that it held before WWI.
Find out more on Henry Cabot Lodge at brainly.com/question/11743795.
#SPJ1
Answer:The surge of pride in America at the time of Manifest Destiny pushed the expansion of the US into the western territories and lead to the annexation of Texas, all of Mexico's western lands, California and more. ... Politics, fear of war with Mexico and fear of another country getting them.
Explanation:
The executive power has grown thanks to the social perception of international crisis. Additionally, this has caused the three branches of public power to weaken.
The central theme of the text is the transformation that the central executive power of the United States has had, influenced by different factors such as:
- Indochina War
- Watergate case
These events have caused the presidency of the United States to acquire more power to make decisions. One of the important aspects of this transformation is international politics because the influence of the international crisis made the executive branch grow in importance.
This deepened an internal crisis between the balance of powers, because the executive branch acquired more power in foreign affairs and this situation is being projected onto the national scene of the United States.
Learn more in: brainly.com/question/17905949
Note: This question is missing because the text is missing.
In the last years presidential primacy, so indispensable to the political order, has turned into presidential supremacy. The constitutional Presidency—as events so apparently disparate as the Indochina War and the Watergate affair showed, has become the imperial Presidency and threatens to be the revolutionary Presidency. . . . The imperial Presidency was essentially the creation of foreign policy. A combination of doctrines and emotions—belief in the permanent and universal crisis, fear of communism, faith in the duty and right of the United States to intervene swiftly in every part of the world—had brought about the unprecedented centralization of decisions. Prolonged war in Vietnam strengthened the tendencies toward both centralization and exclusion. So the imperial Presidency grew at the expense of the constitutional order. Like the cowbird, it hatched its own eggs and pushed the others out of the nest. And, as it overwhelmed the traditional separation of powers in foreign affairs, it began to aspire toward an equivalent centralization of power in the domestic polity.
Learn more in:
