1. to what extent do you think robespierre’s justification for the use of terror is reasonable and why?

2. who decides, or should decide, the “general will? ” (i. e. “what the people as a whole really want”)

3. a) is it okay to use violence to achieve important goals? during a time of emotional crisis? b) in other words, to what extent do you agree with robespierre that the ends justify the means?

4. how is the “use of terror” justified in our world today? b) is our conception of “terror” today different from robespierre and the jacobins’ version of “terror” in the 1790s? why or why not?

most of these questions are based off of the speech, justification of the use of terror written by robespierre.

thurgood marshall

explanation: in 1954, thurgood marshall and a team of naacp attorneys won brown v. board of education of topeka, kansas. in this landmark decision, the supreme court held that segregation in public education violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.

the united states constitution defines the structure of the national government and dictates the scope and limitation of its powers. the constitution is known as “the supreme law of the land” and all other laws are measured against it. the application of the articles and amendments of the constitution comprise constitutional law.

in addition to the united states constitution, each state has its own constitution and therefore, its own body of constitutional law as well. state constitutions resemble the federal constitution in that they outline the state government’s structure of legislative, executive and judicial branches as well as contain a bill of rights.

but there are various ways state constitutions differ from the federal constitution. often, state constitutions are much longer and more detailed than the federal constitution. state constitutions focus more on limiting rather than granting power since its general authority has already been established. as a result, the constitution of alabama is six hundred pages long whereas the federal constitution can be easily read in one sitting front to back.

the details in state constitutions are not particularly “constitutional” in nature. they often address topics unique to the state. the federal constitution can only be amended through a lengthy process designed to limit changes to this fundamental document. as a result, it has only been amended seventeen times since the adoption of the bill of rights in 1791.

state constitutions are more open to amendments. amendments can be proposed by legislature, a constitutional commission or citizens’ petition and can be accepted by referendum.   for example. the constitution of massachusetts has been amended one hundred and twenty times. the constitution of georgia has even been replaced altogether as many as ten times.