3.4 & 3.5 A. Describe one change in colonial attitudes toward the British from 1754 - 1774.
B. Describe one effect of the change described on part (A)
C. Describe one continuity in the relationship between the British and its American colonies from 1754 - 1774.

overtime, the civil rights movement changed in a way that not only it benefited african-americans, but benefited other ethnicity's such as latinos, asians, or women too! that's why the results of the movement be called mixed.

the civil rights movement brought about tremendous changes. no longer were blacks denied the right to vote, to eat, shop, and swim where they , and more importantly, to attend integrated schools. despite its many accomplishments, however, the civil rights movement had its shortcomings. for example, many people, both young and old, lost their lives, homes, jobs, and families. still other individuals were so damaged by psychological trauma that they ceased being productive members of the community. the movement left intact the economic inequities that had contributed to the maintenance of segregation. and finally, racism remained alive and well long after the movement's end. like most movements of its kind, the civil rights movement left behind a mixed legacy of triumph and tragedy.

on the whole, dickens has shown the french revolution and its this site might you. good at his job, and the subject matter he chose, 

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