Britain created the partition of India in 1947 as a way to ease a growing religious divide in India and keep good relations with both sides. However, the partition had many short-term and long-term consequences.

Read this copy of a letter from Winston Churchill to British prime minister Clement Atlee. It discusses the Parliament’s opinion of the prime minister’s plans to divide India.

Imagine that you could go back in time to advise Parliament on the situation that is about to unfold in India and Pakistan. What would you tell them? Would you recommend they send their letter to the prime minster? Why or why not?

I would warn Parliament that the partition would result in long-term hostility and territorial disputes between Pakistan and India. I would tell them about the displacement of millions of people in the frantic mass migration of Muslims into Pakistan and Hindus into India. I would ask the Parliament to take these issues into consideration and proceed with great care.

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