More handpicked essays just for you.
An essay on detailing the process of amending the constitution
Essay on process for amendments to the constitution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, but there was a grapple for its ratification that went on until about two decades after the ratification. Members of Congress believed that the first government of the United States or the Articles of Confederation, needed to be adjusted while others did not want anything to change. After the Revolutionary War, the people did not want a strong central government, because it reminded them too much of what they were trying to escape from. Under the Articles, each state had their own laws, and the need for a new Constitution was desired by many. The Constitution of 1787 created huge debates, arguments and splits in the nation that lasted for several year after its ratification between people who
The Legislature proposes the amendments and the proposal for submission must be approved by a vote of two-thirds of all members elected to each House (Sec 1a. Article 17, Texas Constitution). The proposition is then published twice in each newspaper in the state, also it will be published in a public place in each county courthouse for 30 days. The first notice should be published at least 50 days prior to the
In order for the ERA to be passed, many steps had to be put in place. Two-thirds of each house, Democratic and Republican had to deem the amendment necessary. Once this happens Legislature can call for a convention. Three-fourths of the states must agree to pass the amendment for this to work. All of these regulations are shown in Document 2.
The Constitution is a piece of paper that is meant to change and grow as a nation it changes and grows. The formal amendment process includes two steps, proposal and ratification. An amendment can be proposed by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress. The amendment can then be ratified either by the agreement of three-fourths of the states’ legislatures
Constitution DBQ Around the time of the ratification of the American Constitution, there were some American citizens that wanted the government to have more power, and there were others that thought the people should be in control of the government. These two groups called themselves Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists wanted more government power, and the Anti-Federalists did not.
The Constitution says that an amendment may be proposed either by Congress or a constitutional convention. Congress must have a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. So far, none of the 27 amendments have been suggested by constitutional convention. The President does
The charters granted by William Penn in 1682 and 1683 provided for amending, as did eight of the state constitutions in effect in 1787. Three state constitutions provided for amendment through the legislature, and the other five gave the power to specially elected conventions. ‘The Framers’ experience with the Articles of Confederation, under which constitutional amendment required approval of all thirteen States, revealed that making constitutional change which is too difficult could block needed reforms. Yet their experience with the ‘mutability’ of State laws also cautioned against making too easy. The Constitution permits amendments to be proposed either by Congress or a Convention made up of delegates elected in various
Michael Gist Professor Kimberly Pace Government 2305 13 March 2015 Amendments Changes are made to the constitution in different manners. There is a formal and informal process of changing the constitution. Amendments to the constitution can only be done formally. Formal changes to the constitution are amendments that are voted on by legislatures. A two thirds majority is required to propose an amendment and a three fourths vote is required to ratify the amendment.
. Even if the American people had rejected the U.S. Constitution in 1787 and 1788, the ratification process would have forged a closer union. The debate over ratification, carried out in thirteen state conventions and in newspapers and pamphlets, was the first national public debate in America. The decision for independence had been made in closed session by Congress in 1776; Americans in the individual states and towns then decided to affirm it, but gradually. In contrast, the decision to ratify the Constitution was made in public conventions, and both supporters and opponents of ratification made their case with appeals to public opinion.
Two changes I would make in the constitution both fall into the second article. This is the article concerning the presidential election process and duties. While other articles could of course be modified in some way or another, I find that the two changes I came up with could be agreed with by almost everyone. I tried to make these decision not based on how I feel about politics and my beliefs, but instead I made my decisions based on what is best for everybody. I wanted to put my political affiliation aside for this question because in the grand scheme of things what I will suggest are things that could legitimately be addressed without too much complication.
In 1787, as a debate over ratification of the Constitution evoke a lot of controversy, American citizens were advised not to rely on anyone’s opinions and to trust their own judgment. Additionally, Philadelphian Samuel Bryan published his first essay under the name “Centinel,” claiming that it would “not be difficult to prove” that only an authoritarianism could “bind so great a country under one government,” and that whatever structure men could formulate to oversee conclusively would develop into a dictatorship. The chosen officials of the government would be “devoid of all responsibility or accountability to the great body of the people, and that so far from being a regular balanced government, it would be in practice a permanent ARISTOCRACY.”
The new constitution, a document granting the framework for a new democratic government, replacing the Articles of the Confederation. This new document gained approval from some of the citizens, but also raised questions and concerns from others. There was a constant back and forth between the two groups on whether or not the constitution should be ratified. This editorial provides historical background on the issue and expresses my opinion on which side I would’ve chosen.
In the late 1700’s, James Madison wrote the first Ten Amendments that are listed in the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights were written to ensure American citizens that they have freedoms and rights that the government can 't infringe. Out of the Ten Amendments, I believe that the First and Eighth Amendment are the most significant. The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech, religion, press, petition, and for people to assemble peaceably.
I fully support the ratification of the Constitution. Although there are a few things I would change, I would say that it could be beneficial to our country. It brings me pleasure to know that in the Senate, we will have equal representation. However, the House of Representatives will get voted determined by the population of your state which I believe is unnecessary. The power of slave trade will go to the National Government, this wouldn’t be my top choice, but it has already been settled.
In order to amend the constitution, both houses need a majority of 2/3 votes and the support of 38 states to adopt the amendment. It took 200 years to amend the constitution to change when pay increases take
