Religious ConvictionEssay Preview: Religious ConvictionReport this essayWar! Since the beginning of time mankind had fought over religious conviction. Personal values and moral have set cultural status and their beliefs.One benefit from the Mexican War is the negotiation between the U.S and Mexico threw the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This treaty ended the brutal war between the two countries. The U.S paid $ 15 million obtained the past territories of Texas, New Mexico, and California. A long-term advantage of the treaty gave the U.S the advantage to expand economically threw exports and trade by western expansion and opening ports to the Pacific Ocean. Gold became a valuable resource worth much more than the cost of the territories, which also opened an opportunity to grow internationally with countries like China. One major short-term setback of the Mexican War “gave fuel to a burning flame”. The northerners and the southerners exploded which ignited the break of the Civil War. The north and the south had very different view of politics, religion, and culture. As quoted from Heretta is that ” Ideology (the pursuit of absolutes) replaced politics (the art of compromise) as the ruling principle of American politics”, the country was now in turmoil and started to divide a nation that was becoming a whole.
The Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act was the biggest impact at hand. The North felt that slavery should not have been established in the new territories and the South opposed.
The most obvious benefit to the United States was the gaining of land that equates to “525,000 square miles that included all of the current states of California, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico; most of Arizona and Colorado; and parts of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming” (Depalma 20). As you have stated, this expansion facilitated a more efficient trade route with Asia via the Pacific Ocean. Additionally, the expansion supported the popular belief of “Manifest Destiny”, the broadening of Republican institutions west to the Pacific (Henretta 378). While the war shaped the boundaries of the U.S., as we know it today, it cost many lives and ultimately resulted in an increase of tensions over slavery that led to the onset of the Civil War (Depalma 19).
The Constitution
Although the Constitution was originally written to allow the United States to “keep the peace,” the Federal system was abolished in 1803 and is largely underutilized, having been replaced by legislation over the past five decades to facilitate the transfer of power by the U.S. government to local governments, civil society organizations and other bodies.
For example, it was never repealed to prevent interstate trade within the U.S., until after the Great Depression in the late 1950s. Also of note, the Constitution gives the executive the task of governing the foreign affairs of the United States, though Congress may not act on a bill as a general matter, as the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Mitchell (1890) held that its purpose were “to provide the Constitution of the United States, and not to protect any party, person, or property from foreign interference, in the domestic administration of the affairs of the United States” (Socr. Res. 1, supra). In other words, the Constitution was a written document, not a legislative device, requiring legislative and Executive action by Congress.
However, when the U.S. Constitution was amended in 1978, the framers changed its structure, giving the Congress power exclusively to “enact laws governing commerce in or relating to foreign lands that are at least as effective and conclusive as the regulations of Congress, subjecting them to section 3 of title 36, United States Code & other laws.” And, finally, in 1977, the Supreme Court recognized that “[m]orities have an inherent interest in acquiring commerce by direct control over their lands” and recognized that to accomplish this, the United States would have to use its power of “all manner of economic activities, including in connection with agriculture, tourism, and other activities of interstate commerce. In all these instances and in all the cases before the Court,” the Supreme Court made the following rulings: “[A]n act of Congress, or an order given to Congress or the President to make laws for the benefit of interstate commerce or commerce in the State of Missouri, or any part thereof, and which authorizes the Attorney General to do so, shall, when such laws have been made, be in force whenever they are made upon the state, or to take effect upon the federal marshal’s decision of execution or execution of this act, or any amendment thereof, and it shall have effect within 10 days after such date. It shall not be in any manner inconsistent with the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Executive herein before drawn up.” (Supreme Court Memo, 1:22; U.S. v. Davis, 715 f.541; Smith, 9:4).
While a more general view may be reached regarding the constitutionality of the United States’ foreign policy, many believe the Constitution provides no clear legal guidance that is compatible with that of its international sponsors. In fact, the Court has recognized at least one case