The United States Constitution
This is a place where people can post their interpretations of the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and what laws violate certain Ammendments explicitly.
URL http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-united-states-constitution/group-816/
Public News & Politics 117 2008/02/16 16:13:42
Canvas
Uses of this group are used for record keeping purposes of laws that violate our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Create your own forums and or polls.
Forums
| 25 |
|
|
|
Laws, Bills, Amendments, that violate or will violate the Articles of the Constitution. |
2 |
|
|
Laws, Bills, or Amendments that violate or will violate the 1st Amendment. |
0 | -- |
| 2 |
|
|
|
List Executive Orders that are in question for discussion. |
0 | -- |
|
Questions or discussion about the judiciary |
1 |
|
Comments
Questions
Please explain your answer as to why you agree with it or disagree.5 opinions2011/10/27 21:08:50
Off the top of my head, I believe John Locke originated the phrase, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." For some reason Jefferson decided to change "property" to "happiness." Given t...66 opinions2009/01/02 02:41:56
I think this brings up several issues ranging from the Sanctity of Life Act, National Identification, State sovereignty, unborn and so on. "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to...19 opinions2008/12/28 03:44:21
The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."
It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no nation...
""
The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."
It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today - even elections for the presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum. It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another story altogether.
Suffice it to say, for now, that the notion of popular amendment makes perfect sense in the constitutional framework, even though the details of affecting popular amendment could be impossible to resolve.
Changes to the Constitution
The US Constitution has been changed 27 times through amendments.
That is the purpose of the amendments. And of course its meaning can be changed by the courts who have decided it is a "living document".
It is changed by having 2/3 of the house and senate agree to the change, and then 3/4 of the states through a 2/3 majority have to rattify it.