The most important aspect of the monroe doctrine (1823) was that it a) prevented an invasion of french forces into mexico. b) prevented an invasion of british forces into argentina. c) showed the u. s. backed the independence of latin america. d) allowed the powerful u. s. navy to patrol the south american coast.

 C) showed the US backed the independence of Latin America.

Explanation:

The United States was still young at the time the Monroe Doctrine was declared, and did not have a powerful navy to be patrolling the South American coast at that time.  But the US did want to keep European powers from encroaching into the Western Hemisphere, and wanted to put Europe on notice to that effect.  

President James Monroe asserted the doctrine in his annual address to Congress in 1823.  The doctrine was that the US would not interfere in European affairs, but also would view any attempts by European powers to take control of any nation in the Western Hemisphere as a hostile act against the United States.

As reported by the US Office of the Historian, there were some additional motives in mind in the US position, in addition to backing the independence of Latin American nations.  "Monroe’s administration forewarned the imperial European powers against interfering in the affairs of the newly independent Latin American states or potential United States territories. While Americans generally objected to European colonies in the New World, they also desired to increase United States influence and trading ties throughout the region to their south."

answer: c

explanation:

its just the right answer

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