Prompt:
Write a critique of the two speeches given at the Berlin Wall by President Kennedy and President Reagan on which speech
was more effective. You should address your critique to future world leaders. You will notice that although both speeches
hope to change the thinking of the Eastern Bloc, each had a different approach. Within your critique, you need to propose
a claim and counter claim that identifies the most effective speech. Make sure you support your ideas with key details from
the speeches, as well as with facts. Your concluding statement should ask future leaders to include the techniques you
found most favorable. Focus on the following questions to help you prepare your essay:
• What was Kennedy's approach?
• What was Reagan's approach?
• How are the speeches similar?
• How are they different?
• Which speech do you think was most effective? Why?
• Why would other listeners disagree?

a historian who compares the expansion of political systems to the expansion of economic systems to the expansion of economic systems is organizing history by theme.

hope this : d

the roman army grew in size and became dominant in the mediterranean region.

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

you are really obsesed w/ the wolverines

explanation:

its not a bad thing to be honest