Reference no: EM133243748

Reply two the two posts below: 

1. Respond to the post below. Agree or disagree with the post and justify your response, or share more topics that are related to the post, and ask one question to broaden the post. 

Reply to this post: My biggest reason to say it will stay the same is simply because 2025 is only two and a half years away, which is not a lot of time for a systematic reform of the separation of powers. The current position of presidential power in foreign policy was formed by former President's Clinton and Bush in the post-Cold War era and post 9/11 era. President Clinton and his administration held the task of reformulating U.S. policy and focuses mainly on democratic enlargement (Brands, 2012). This meant promoting democracy abroad, a goal that would be continued through several presidents to come. After the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States became the only major power in the world, bringing its values to light (Brands, 2012). This gave policymakers of the US the chance to spread their values. Clinton became involved in foreign policy, his administration expanded NATO, brokered peace between Israel and Jordan and negotiated new trade agreements, his administration effectively used American power (Brands, 2012). President Bush then would disregard Clinton's containment policies and utilize his position in foreign policy for a more aggressive approach and initiate the Global War on Terrorism (Brands, 2012). President's following Clinton and Bush continued to exercise their powers in relation to foreign policy. The Constitution created separate powers with the intent to limit powers and not allow one to become too powerful. However, the Supreme Court decided in 1936 in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Co. that the executive branch has full powers and they are not contingent on Congress (Fletcher, 2020). Congress attempted to counter this with the War Powers Act of 1973 and the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 (Fletcher, 2020). The attempts had loophole and the previous Supreme Court ruling gave the President's the legal ground to stand on. The precedent has been set by Obama, Trump, and previous administrations that foreign policy will stay in the hands of the President. Specifically, President Trump insisted that the Constitutions confers on him the unbounded power to manage foreign affairs (Fletcher, 2020). A precedent set that will allow President Biden and future presidents reign over foreign policy and the opportunity for the use of those powers to even be expanded by 2025.

2. Respond to the post below. Agree or disagree with the post and justify your response, or share more topics that are related to the post, and ask one question to broaden the post. 

According to Nelson Mandela in his assertion, the violence chosen by the African National Congress (ANC)  was not terrorism. This is true because the ANC members who formed Umkonto hoped to undertake sabotage and operate under the strict instruction given by the ANC leadership right from the start, and at no point did the ANC intend to kill or injure people while undertaking their operations (Shubin, 2021). This gives the adopted violence a different face, far from what terrorism would be. Terrorism is described as the unlawful use of violence or force against people or properties to coerce or intimidate the civilian population and government to advance social or political goals. Greatly, the intention is the only bigger difference between the operations undertaken by the ANC through Umkonto and that which a terrorist organization would adopt.

Nelson Mandela and his group believed that without violence, the way for Africans to succeed in the goal of winning the struggle against the white supremacy principle. At the time, there were limited ways in which lawful means of expressing opposition would have survived because white supremacy had put in place legislation that narrowed options by the freedom fighter only to accept inferiority permanently or defy the government of the day. Unlike what terrorists would do, the ANC broke the law in a manner that avoided violence, and that violence would arise if the government responded with force to crush the opposition (Aldosari, 2020). This is different from terrorism because terrorist leaves no room for violence-free operations, and their sole approach is always accompanied by the use of force. For such reasons, I feel the violence adopted by Nelson Madela's group did not amount to terrorist activity.