The unity between nature and phenomenon? for example

relations between the soviet union and the united states were driven by a complex interplay of ideological, political, and economic factors, which led to shifts between cautious cooperation and often bitter superpower rivalry over the years. the distinct differences in the political systems of the two countries often prevented them from reaching a mutual understanding on key policy issues and even, as in the case of the cuban missile crisis, brought them to the brink of war.

the united states government was initially hostile to the soviet leaders for taking russia out of world war i and was opposed to a state ideologically based on communism. although the united states embarked on a famine relief program in the soviet union in the early 1920s and american businessmen established commercial ties there during the period of the new economic policy (1921–29), the two countries did not establish diplomatic relations until 1933. by that time, the totalitarian nature of joseph stalin's regime presented an insurmountable obstacle to friendly relations with the west. although world war ii brought the two countries into alliance, based on the common aim of defeating nazi germany, the soviet union's aggressive, antidemocratic policy toward eastern europe had created tensions even before the war ended.

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

“i think it is very plausible that if there are five votes to end the death penalty, it could be with the people who are on the court right now,” - smith

so basically it is not clearly and consistently imposed

- a government ruled by the people, or assembly. officials monarchy - a single ruler like a king. over time some city-states, like athens would change governments. what this means is that all the citizens voted on all the laws.