What or who gave the United States the right to police the world?
440075
you did....by voting for your president.
48990
"A policy that made the US the conscience of the\nworld." Coined by Woodrow Wilson? Here's more about it:\nhttp://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/jwb/Collab/19thC%20Diplomacy/wilson.htm
760799
Are you talking about the English Magna Carta or the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the USA.???\nIt is confusing.
1082174
Because that's being a real American! We aren't immune to becoming a police state, by any means. This country was founded by a bunch of radicals who rose up against injustice. What sort of American would I be if I didn't uphold that legacy?\n\nAnyone who tries to circumvent the constitution, who lies to the American people (Bush, for instance), ought to be set straight. It's our DUTY. It's the only way unscrupulous people won't take over and completely destroy our way of life.\n\n(EDIT: Oh, and my family's been here since the early 1700's)
573184
1.  A.  Traffic courts have limited jurisdiction.\n\n2.  D.  WPA was supposed to help America through the Great Depression.  What actually got America out of the Great Depression was the buildup necessary to fight World War II.\n\n3.  A.  Don't quote me, but I believe it's Oregon.\n\n4.  A, possibly C.  The rights read to someone are actually the Miranda rights, coming from the Miranda vs. Arizona case in 1966 (I'm not sure if that's the case that you're trying to quote in C).  The right to remain silent stems from the Fifth Amendment right to "not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against yourself" (paraphrased).  Marbury alludes back to the Marbury vs. Madison case of 1801, where Marbury was a midnight appointment of outgoing president John Adams, who James Madison, the new Secretary of State, refused to grant credentials to.
179059
US was an independent country, so it controlled its own territoty, but not much beyond it (the present world domination started after WWII)
69996
This is an interesting question. The answer is that the US President has the power to declare war with the approval of congress.
727242
Hello:\nBy police power I think you mean the government's right to act to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.\n\nIf so, I found an article that looks like it is on-point:\n\nHURRICANE KATRINA AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH-BASED ARGUMENT FOR GREATER FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE\n\nBy David L. Feinberg \n\nVirginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law\nSpring 2006\n\n\nAt page 607 it discusses police power relative to natural disasters.\n\nGood luck!
256256
Ha, I like the way that's put. America doesn't want everybody to obey it, but it seems like that becuase America is the only country with the balls to do anything about scumbags. The United Nations are supposed to take care of stuff like that, but they don't. So we're forced to take care of the whole world, becuase these other pansies won't.
735818
I believe it goes against the very things Americans fought over for their independence. When checks and balances are basically not permitted, then who polices the police?
800204
Totalitarian police state. I recall that people could be punished for having bad thoughts, for planning crimes in their heads. It was a few steps beyond the Cheney 1% doctrine where the US will treat any threat that has a 1% probability of occuring as if it was a certainty. (One Percent Doctrine, by Ron Suskind), and a few steps beyond the Bush doctrine of preemptive war; that the US has the right to strike another country BEFORE it's an imminent threat to the US or one of our allies.
1185819
The President of the United States has the best trained security detail on the planet.\n\nThe Pope is protected by the Swiss Guard.
525705
I don't understand why other countries don't meddle in US affairs - get the drift? You are asking for more chaos. Who regulates the US then? Should the whole world be subject to the whims of one government whether right or wrong?
388950
Honestly, USA. We took over other people's land and called it our own. Our government and President sucks. Most of the people in the country don't know about their own Constitution. And there is always something corrupt in the White House now-a-days.
1022626
Yes\n\nThe bottom line is that all countries, in this supposed civilized world, have no right to occupy/invade another country unless there is a threat.... That threat has to be proven and UN approval must be granted. This is exactly why we, and many other countries, helped Kuwait when Iraq occupied/invaded them.\n\nOne country has no right to decide on its own to suddenly go liberate another country. That is common sense in a civilized progressive world. That (and I am not trying to compare Bush to Hitler) is exactly what Germany did in WWII when HItler kept occupying one country after another. The world recognized that as wrong.\n\nAlso as far as being charged with war crimes... yes.\n\n* Bush has violated the geneva convention \n* Bush has used redension to knowingly use torture.\n* Bush is holding prisoners without allowing the Red Cross to have access to some of them and also not releasing some of their identities.\n\nSorry if some of us Americans don't want to hear that but all of that is fact and are clearly war crimes.\n\nI also believe that assassinating ppl in Iraq and killing 100,000s shoud be considered a war crime in this circumstance because Bush had no right to invade that country. He invaded on false-pretense. BUT that part is just my personal belief and I am not sure where that falls under any war crimes act.\n\nAlso Answerman, don't fall into the 'congress voted for it' trap. They want you to believe that all who voted to GIVE BUSH AUTHORITY IF NECESSARY was saying it was ok to go to war. I've seen many interviews with politicians who stated they never would have believed in 100 years that Bush was going to go into Iraq without UN approval. They got tricked into falling for his scam.\n\nPpl should learn their history: Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia were not occupations. They were either forms of containtment (that is the political term for the freeze on the spreading of communism) or humanitarian acts.
272746
To steal the wealth of the invaded country. No national leaders really care about freedom, democracy and so on in other countries. USA now claims they want democracy in Iraq, but for a long time, they funded dictatorships in Latin America. They just find the best way to steal the wealth of all over the planet.
682902
The Monroe Doctrine, expressed in 1823, proclaimed the United States' opinion that European powers should no longer colonize the Americas or interfere with the affairs of sovereign nations located in the Americas, such as the United States, Mexico, and others. In return, the United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and in wars between a European power and its colonies. However, if these latter type of wars were to occur in the Americas, the U.S. would view such action as hostile toward itself.\n\nThe doctrine was issued by President James Monroe during his seventh annual State of the Union address to Congress. It was met first with doubt, then with enthusiasm. This was a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States.\n\nThe doctrine was conceived by its authors, especially John Quincy Adams, as a proclamation by the United States of moral opposition to colonialism, but has subsequently been re-interpreted in a wide variety of ways, including by President Theodore Roosevelt as a license for the U.S. to practice its own form of colonialism (known as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.)