Part B Using your article, what you have learned in this lesson, and your responses to part A, compose a three-paragraph letter
to the people involved in your article telling them how their situation would be different if they lived in the United States.
Mention the rights and the documents that you noted in part A. Be sure to use properly cited quotes, good grammar and
spelling, transitions, and topic and concluding sentences.

PLATO word by word

Explanation:

Dear Citizens of the People’s Republic of China,

I recently read a news article about the Great Cannon, which is your government’s new program to censor the Internet. It’s designed to attack and disrupt websites that the government wants to block you from accessing.

The article quoted Internet security experts saying that the Chinese government can use the Great Cannon to spy on any Internet user accessing Chinese websites, including websites hosted on servers outside of China. The article said the State Internet Information Office will continue to increase its censorship of the Internet to crack down on activists fighting for personal freedom for Chinese citizens.

The Chinese government maintains that it has the right to block Internet content that it views as a threat to national security. It claims it’s acting to protect its citizens from “dangerous” information. The US government, however, can’t make a similar argument, either to its citizens or to other nations. All US citizens are protected from invasion of their privacy by the first of 10 amendments to the US Constitution. These amendments are known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees citizens the right to demand a warrant for police searches of their homes. Under the Bill of Rights, American citizens’ personal liberties are safe.

hhghkkggcvbkkjvhkiuvvb

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