Historians looking back at our time will note the consistent restraint and peaceful intentions of the West. They will note that it was the democracies who refused to use the threat of their nuclear monopoly in the forties and early fifties for territorial or imperial gain. Had that nuclear monopoly been in the hands of the Communist world, the map of Europe—indeed, the world— would look very different today. And certainly they will note it was not the democracies that invaded Afghanistan [in 1979] or suppressed Polish Solidarity or used chemical and toxin warfare in Afghanistan and Southeast Asia—President Ronald Reagan, speech to the British House of Commons, June 8, 1982 Which attitude about Cold War rivalries is expressed by President Ronald Reagan in this speech?

The idea expressed by President Ronald Reagan in this excerpt is that it was communist nations that threatened world peace and not western democracy.

Explanation:

The given excerpt is taken from President Ronald Reagan's speech delivered on June 8, 1982, delivered to members of the British Parliament at the Palace of Westminster, London. The speech is famously known as "the Evil Empire."

In this speech, President Ronald Reagan addressed to ongoing Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. He asserted that the war was not of a nuclear weapon but good and evil.

In this excerpt, he is expressing the notion that when people will look back to history, they will know that it was communist nations that threatened world peace and not western democracy. He remarked that if power would have been in the hands of the Soviet, communist nation, then the world would have been a different place.

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