What Characteristics Of The United States Constitution Give It Flexibility In Adapting To Change

The Twenty-First Subpoena overturned prohibition, the 18th Subpoena, thus ending Prohibition. (Credit: The National Constitution Center at https://constitutioncenter.org/web log/happy-birthday-21st-amendment)

Learning Objectives

• Describe how the Constitution may exist formally amended/changed.
• Explicate the contents and significance of the Bill of Rights.
• Discuss the importance of amendments.

A major problem with the Articles of Confederation was the inability to adapt and modify without unanimous consent. The framers learned this lesson well. One of the strengths they built into the Constitution was the ability to amend it to meet the nation's needs and address concerns or structural elements they had non anticipated.

Since ratification in 1789, the Constitution has changed simply 27 times. The first ten amendments were added in 1791. Responding to charges by anti-federalists that the Constitution made the national government as well powerful and provided no protections for the rights of individuals, the newly elected federal government tackled the issue of guaranteeing liberties for American citizens. James Madison, a fellow member of Congress from Virginia, took the lead in drafting nineteen potential changes to the Constitution.

Madison followed the procedure outlined in Article V that says amendments tin can originate from 1 of ii sources. First, they tin be proposed by Congress and approved by a two-thirds majority in both the Firm and the Senate before being sent to the legislatures in all the states. If three-quarters of state legislatures vote to approve an subpoena, it becomes part of the Constitution. A second method allows for the petitioning of Congress by united states of america: Upon receiving such petitions from two-thirds of the states, Congress must call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments, which would then be forwarded to the states for ratification past the required three-quarters. All the current constitutional amendments were created using the first method.

Having drafted xix proposed amendments, Madison submitted them to Congress. Merely twelve were canonical by two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives and sent to the states for ratification. Of these, only ten were accepted by three-quarters of the land legislatures. In 1791, these first ten amendments were added to the Constitution and became known as the Bill of Rights.

The ability to modify the Constitution has made it a flexible certificate. Framers made alteration the document sufficiently difficult that information technology has not been changed repeatedly; only seventeen amendments have been added since the ratification of the first ten (one of these, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, was amid Madison's rejected nine proposals).

Acquire more about the formal process of amending the Constitution and view exhibits related to the passage of specific amendments at the National Archives website.

Protecting Liberties

The Constitution—in particular, the first ten amendments forming the Bill of Rights—protect the liberties and rights of individuals. It does non limit this protection to citizens or adults; in almost cases the Constitution but refers to "persons" which over time has grown to hateful that fifty-fifty children, visitors from other countries, and immigrants—permanent or temporary, legal or undocumented—savour the same freedoms as adult citizens within the U.s.a. or its territories . Neither Japanese tourists visiting Mt. Rainier National Park nor visitors exceeding the limit of days allowed on their visas sacrifice those liberties. In everyday chat, we ofttimes treat freedoms, liberties, and rights equally effectively the same matter—similar to how separation of powers and checks and balances are often used interchangeably, when in fact they are singled-out concepts.

Consider the Original

The Neb of Rights: A Transcription

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the fourth dimension of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a want, in order to prevent misconstruction or corruption of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And equally extending the ground of public confidence in the Regime, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and Business firm of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, ii thirds of both Houses concurring, that the post-obit Articles exist proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as office of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in improver to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United states of America, proposed past Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the 5th Article of the original Constitution. (Notation: The following text is a transcription of the outset 10 amendments to the Constitution in their original course. These amendments were ratified December fifteen, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights.")

Subpoena I Congress shall make no constabulary respecting an establishment of organized religion, or prohibiting the free practice thereof; or abridging the liberty of speech, or of the printing; or the right of the people peaceably to gather, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a gratis State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment Iii No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of state of war, but in a manner to exist prescribed by police force.

Amendment Iv The right of the people to exist secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, merely upon probable cause, supported by Adjuration or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V No person shall be held to reply for a uppercase, or otherwise infamous law-breaking, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Thou Jury, except in cases arising in the country or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall whatsoever person be subject for the same offence to exist twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in whatsoever criminal instance to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall individual holding be taken for public utilise, without only compensation.

Amendment Vi In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall bask the right to a speedy and public trial, past an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which commune shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to exist informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses confronting him; to accept compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense force.

Amendment VII In Suits at common police, where the value in controversy shall exceed 20 dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in whatsoever Courtroom of the U.s.a., than according to the rules of the common constabulary.

Amendment VIII Excessive bond shall not exist required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall non be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States past the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to united states of america, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.^[one]

Defining Civil Liberties

For linguistic communication precision, political scientists and legal experts distinguish between civil liberties and civil rights, even though the Constitution has been interpreted to protect both. We often envision civil liberties as limitations on government power, intended to protect freedoms from illegal government intrusion. For example, the First Subpoena denies the government the power to prohibit "the free exercise" of religion; united states and the national government cannot forbid people to follow a religion of their choice, fifty-fifty if politicians and judges remember the religion is misguided, cursing, or otherwise inappropriate. Yous are free to create your ain religion and recruit followers to it (bailiwick to the U.S. Supreme Courtroom deeming information technology a religion), even if both social club and government disapprove of its tenets. That said, the way you practice your religion may be regulated if information technology impinges on the rights of others. Similarly, the Eighth Amendment says the government cannot impose "brutal and unusual punishments" on individuals for their criminal acts. Although the definitions of brutal and unusual have expanded over the years, the courts have generally and consistently interpreted this provision as making it unconstitutional for government officials to torture suspects.

Civil rights are guarantees that government officials will treat people equally and base of operations decisions on the law rather than race, gender, or other personal characteristics. The Constitution's civil rights guarantee makes it unlawful for a school or academy run by a state government to treat students differently based on their race, ethnicity, historic period, sex, or national origin. In the 1960s and 1970s, many states had divide schools where merely students of a certain race or gender were able to written report. The courts adamant that these policies violated the civil rights of students refused admission considering of those rules.^[2]

The thought that Americans—indeed, people in general—have fundamental rights and liberties was a core argument for independence. In writing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Thomas Jefferson drew on the ideas of John Locke to express the colonists' belief in certain inalienable or natural rights that no ruler had the ability or authority to deny them. It was a scathing legal indictment of Male monarch George III for violating the colonists' liberties. Although the Declaration of Independence does not guarantee specific freedoms, its language fundamentally inspired many states to adopt protections for civil liberties and rights in their own constitutions. It also expressed principles of the founding era that have resonated in the United States since its independence. In particular, Jefferson'south words "all men are created equal" became the centerpiece of struggles for the rights of women and minorities.

Actors and civil rights activists Sidney Poitier (left), Harry Belafonte (heart), and Charlton Heston (right) on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963, during the March on Washington. (Credit: National Archives and Records Administration)

Ceremonious Liberties and the Constitution

The Constitution as written in 1787 did not include a Neb of Rights. The idea of including one was proposed and after cursory discussion was dismissed in the final week of the Constitutional Convention. The framers believed they faced more pressing concerns than the protection of ceremonious rights and liberties, most notably keeping the delicate matrimony together in the low-cal of internal unrest and external threats.

Moreover, the framers thought they had adequately covered rights bug in the document's principal trunk. Federalists did include some protections against legislative acts that might restrict denizen's liberties, based on the history of real and perceived abuses by both British kings, parliaments and royal governors. Article I, Section ix, limits the congressional power in iii ways: prohibiting the passage of bills of attainder, prohibiting ex post facto laws, and limiting the congressional ability to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

A bill of attainder is a law that convicts or punishes someone for a crime without a trial, a tactic used often in England confronting the king's enemies. Prohibition of such laws ways that the U.Due south. Congress cannot only punish people who are unpopular or seem to exist guilty of crimes. An ex post facto law has a retroactive outcome: it can exist used to punish crimes that were not crimes at the time they were committed, or it can be used to increase the severity of penalisation after the fact.

Finally, the writ of habeas corpus in our common-police force legal organization demands that a neutral judge decide whether someone has been lawfully detained. Peculiarly in times of war, or in response to threats against national security, the government has held suspected enemy agents without admission to civilian courts. For case, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln detained suspected Amalgamated saboteurs and sympathizers in Union-controlled states and attempted to have them tried in military courts, leading the Supreme Courtroom to rule in Ex parte Milligan that the government could not bypass the civilian court arrangement in states where it was operating.^[iii]

During Globe War II, the Roosevelt assistants interned Japanese Americans and had other suspected enemy agents—including U.S. citizens—tried by military courts rather than by the civilian justice organization, a selection the Supreme Court upheld in Ex parte Quirin.^[4]

More recently, in the wake of the ix/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush-league and Obama administrations detained suspected terrorists captured both within and exterior the United States and sought to avert trials in civilian courts. Hence, there take been times in our history when national security bug trumped individual liberties.

Richard Quirin and seven other trained German saboteurs had once lived in the United states and had secretly returned in June 1942. Upon their capture, a military commission (shown hither) convicted the men—six of them received death sentences. Ex parte Quirin set a precedent for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant confronting the United states. (Credit: Library of Congress)

Debate continues over these bug. The Federalists reasoned that the limited set of enumerated powers of Congress, along with the limitations on those powers in Commodity I, Section 9, would suffice, and no separate bill of rights was needed. Alexander Hamilton, writing as Publius in Federalist No. 84, argued that the Constitution was "merely intended to regulate the full general political interests of the nation," rather than to concern itself with "the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns." Hamilton went on to argue that list specific rights might really be dangerous every bit a pretext for people to merits that rights not included in such a list were therefore not protected. Later, in his speech introducing the proposed amendments that would become the Neb of Rights, James Madison best-selling another Federalist argument: "It has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several state constitutions."^[5]

For that matter, the Articles of Confederation had not included a specific listing of rights either.

However, the Anti-Federalists argued that the Federalists' position was incorrect and mayhap even insincere. They believed provisions such as the elastic clause in Article I, Department 8 would allow Congress to legislate on matters well across the limited ones foreseen by the Constitution's authors; thus, they held that a nib of rights was necessary. One of the Anti-Federalists, Brutus, whom most scholars believe to be Robert Yates, wrote: "The powers, rights, and authority, granted to the general authorities past this Constitution, are as consummate, with respect to every object to which they extend, as that of whatsoever land regime—It reaches to every thing which concerns human happiness—Life, liberty, and property, are nether its controul [sic]. In that location is the aforementioned reason, therefore, that the exercise of power, in this case, should exist restrained inside proper limits, as in that of the state governments."^[half-dozen]

Two centuries of experience suggests the Anti-Federalists may have been correct; while the states retain a significant importance, the scope and powers of the national regime are much broader today than in 1787—probable beyond even the imaginings of the Federalists themselves.

James Madison ultimately delivered on this promise past proposing a package of amendments in the First Congress. These derived from the Annunciation of Rights in the Virginia country constitution, ratification convention suggestions and other sources, which were extensively debated in both houses of Congress and ultimately proposed as twelve carve up amendments for ratification. 10 of the amendments were successfully ratified by the requisite 75 pct of the states and became known as the Bill of Rights.

Extending the Bill of Rights to u.s.a.

In the decades following the Constitution's ratification, the Supreme Court declined to expand the Bill of Rights to curb the ability of the states, virtually notably in the 1833 instance of Barron 5. Baltimore.^[7]

In this case, which dealt with Fifth Subpoena property rights, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Nib of Rights practical only to federal government actions. Explaining the courtroom'southward ruling, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that it was incorrect to argue that "the Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several states against the undue exercise of power by their corresponding land governments; as well as against that which might exist attempted by their [Federal] government."

Representative John Bingham (R-OH) (a) is considered the writer of the Fourteenth Subpoena, adopted on July 9, 1868. Influenced by his mentor, Salmon P. Hunt, Bingham was a strong supporter of the antislavery cause; after Chase lost the Republican presidential nomination to Abraham Lincoln (b), Bingham became one of the president's about ardent supporters. (Credit: National Archives and Records Administration)

The prevailing view on the limited application of the Bill of Rights to the states inverse in the wake of the Ceremonious State of war. Soon after the Thirteenth Subpoena abolished slavery, land governments—particularly those in the former Confederacy—began to pass "black codes" restricting the rights of former slaves and effectively relegating them to second-course citizenship under their state laws and constitutions. Angered by these actions, members of the Radical Republican faction in Congress demanded the laws be overturned. In the short term, they advocated suspending noncombatant government in most of the southern states and replacing politicians who had enacted the blackness codes. Long-term they proposed ii constitutional amendments to guarantee the rights of freed slaves on an equal standing with whites; these rights became the Fourteenth Amendment, dealing with civil liberties and rights in full general, and the Fifteenth Amendment protecting the correct to vote in particular. But, the right to vote did not yet use to women or to Native Americans.

Civil liberties were significantly clarified past the Fourteenth Subpoena in 1868. Showtime, information technology states that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the Us" – a provision echoing the privileges and immunities clause in Commodity Four, Section 2 of the original Constitution ensuring that states treat citizens of other states the same as their own. (To use an example from today, the punishment for speeding by an out-of-state driver cannot be more severe than the punishment for an in-country driver). Legal scholars and the courts accept extensively debated the significant of this privileges or immunities clause over the years; some have argued information technology was supposed to extend the entire Bill of Rights (or at least the first eight amendments) to united states of america while others take argued that just some rights are extended. In 1999, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for a bulk of the Supreme Courtroom, argued in Saenz v. Roe that the clause protects the right to travel from i land to another.^[8]

More recently, Justice Clarence Thomas argued in the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago ruling that this clause applied the individual correct to bear artillery to the states.^[9]

The due procedure clause is the 2d provision of the Fourteenth Subpoena applying the Bill of Rights to u.s.a.. Information technology says, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or belongings, without due process of constabulary." As in the Fifth Subpoena this provision refers to "due process," a term that generally means people must be treated fairly and impartially past government officials (or with what is usually referred to as substantive due process). Although the provision's text does not mention rights specifically, the courts have held in a series of cases that it indicates certain fundamental liberties that cannot be denied past united states. For example, in Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Supreme Courtroom ruled that states could non deny unemployment benefits to an individual who turned down a job considering it required working on the Sabbath.^[ten]

First in 1897, the Supreme Court established that various Nib of Rights protections of fundamental liberties must be upheld by the states, even if their land constitutions and laws do non protect them every bit fully every bit the Bill of Rights does—or at all. This means there has been a process of selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights into country practices; in other words, the Constitution effectively inserts parts of the Pecker of Rights into country laws and constitutions, fifty-fifty though it does not do and then explicitly. When cases arise to clarify item bug and procedures, the United States Supreme Court decides whether state laws violate the Bill of Rights and are therefore unconstitutional.

For instance, under the Fifth Amendment a person can be tried in federal court for a felony—a serious crime—just subsequently a grand jury issues an indictment confirming information technology is reasonable to try the person for that criminal offence. (A k jury is a group of citizens charged with deciding if at that place is enough evidence of a crime to prosecute someone.) The Supreme Court has ruled however that states are non required to utilise yard juries equally long as they ensure people accused of crimes are indicted using an equally fair process.

Selective incorporation is an ongoing process. When the Supreme Courtroom initially decided in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to go on and bear arms, it did not and then decide it was a central liberty the states must as well uphold. It was only in the McDonald v. Chicago case two years later that the Supreme Court incorporated the 2d Amendment into state law. The Supreme Court too gradually moved to extend the Nib of Rights to usa regarding censorship and the Fourteenth Amendment. In Virtually v. Minnesota (1931), the Court disagreed with state courts regarding censorship and ruled information technology unconstitutional except in rare cases.^[eleven]

The Beak of Rights is designed to protect the freedoms of individuals from interference by authorities officials. Originally these protections were applied only to actions by the national government; unlike sets of rights and liberties were protected past state constitutions and laws, and fifty-fifty when the rights themselves were the same, the level of protection for them often differed past definition across the states. Nearly of the Bill of Rights' protections of civil liberties have been expanded to comprehend actions by country governments since the Civil War, through the Fourteenth Amendment, a series of Supreme Court decisions and a process of selective incorporation. Even so at that place is all the same vigorous contend about what these rights entail and how they should be balanced against the interests of others and of social club every bit a whole.

How has the contract changed?

The Bill of Rights was intended to quiet the fears of anti-federalists that the Constitution did not adequately protect individual liberties and thus encourage their support of the new national government.

Protections for religion, speech, press, and assembly did not exist under English police–the right to petition the government did, however. The prohibition in the First Subpoena against the establishment of an official church differed significantly from both English language precedent and the practise of several states. The 4th Amendment, protecting Americans from unwarranted search and seizure of their property, was also new.

Guaranteeing Your Kickoff Amendment Rights

The liberties of U.Due south. citizens are protected by the Bill of Rights, simply potential or perceived threats to these freedoms arise constantly. This is especially true regarding First Amendment rights. Read about some of these threats at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) website and let people know how you feel well-nigh these issues or check out American Center for Police and Justice (ACLJ) at http://aclj.org/news.

The 9th and Tenth Amendments were intended to provide all the same another balls that people's rights would be protected and that the national government would not become too powerful. The Ninth Amendment guarantees that liberties extend across those described in the preceding documents. This was an important acknowledgment that the protected rights were all-encompassing, and the government should non attempt to interfere with them. The Supreme Courtroom, for example, has held that the 9th Subpoena protects the correct to privacy fifty-fifty though none of the preceding amendments explicitly mentions this right. The Tenth Amendment, i of the showtime submitted to united states for ratification, ensures that states possess all powers not explicitly assigned to the national government by the Constitution. This guarantee protected states' reserved powers to regulate things similar wedlock, divorce, intrastate transportation, and commerce, equally well equally passing laws affecting education, public wellness, and safe.

Of the remaining amendments, four are of particularly nifty significance. The Thirteenth Subpoena abolished slavery in the United states. The Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship and equal protection nether the police regardless of race. It also prohibited states from depriving their residents of life, liberty, or property without a legal proceeding. Over the years, the Fourteenth Amendment has been used to require states to protect virtually of the aforementioned freedoms granted past the Pecker of Rights.

Of the later amendments only 1, the Twenty-Offset, repealed some other amendment, the Eighteenth, which had prohibited the manufacture, import, export, distribution, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages. Other amendments rectify bug that accept arisen over the years or that reflect changing times. For example, the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, gave voters the right to directly elect U.S. senators. The Twentieth Amendment, which was ratified in 1933 during the Peachy Depression, moved the date of the presidential inauguration from March to January. In a time of crunch, like a severe economical depression, the president needed to take office nigh immediately after beingness elected. The Twenty-Second Amendment, added in 1955, limits the president to two terms in function, and the Xx-Seventh Amendment, first submitted for ratification in 1789, regulates the implementation of laws regarding salary increases or decreases for members of Congress.

Later many years of campaigns for suffrage, the Nineteenth Amendment finally gave women the right to vote in 1920 after a tie vote in Tennessee.  A 24-year quondam representative (Harry Burn, a Republican) cast the necktie-breaking vote after a little push from his female parent.^[12]

Suffragists encourage Ohio men to support votes for women. Before the Nineteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1920, only a few western states such as Wyoming gave women the right to vote. These women seem to be attracting a primarily female audience to hear their crusade. (Credit: The Library of Congress)

Subsequent amendments further extended the suffrage. The Twenty-Third Amendment (1961) allowed residents of Washington, DC to vote for the president. The Xx-Fourth Subpoena (1964) abolished the use of poll taxes. Many southern states had used a poll tax, a taxation placed on voting, to preclude poor persons from voting. The last extension of the suffrage occurred in 1971 in the midst of the Vietnam War. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment reduced the voting historic period from 20-one to 18. Many people complained that the young people who were serving in Vietnam should have the right to vote for or against those making decisions that might literally meant life or death. Other amendments have been proposed, including an amendment to guarantee equal rights to women, but all take failed.

The Eleventh Subpoena is extremely complicated from the judicial perspective, with federal courts taking multiple paths for interpretation of the language. Substantially, it deals with the issue of sovereign immunity (Is the government immune from prosecution?).  Well-nigh attorneys understand that suits in the federal court system are more likely to achieve impartial results rather than suits filed against a state inside the country's system.

The Twelfth Amendment supersedes clause 3 of § 1 of Commodity II of the Constitution. According to the Article 2, Department 1 of the Constitution, if 2 candidates each received a majority of the electoral votes but are tied, the Firm of Representatives would make up one's mind which 1 would exist President.

In 1909 progressives in Congress again attached a provision for an income tax to a tariff bill. Conservatives, hoping to impale the idea for adept, proposed a ramble amendment enacting such a taxation; they believed an amendment would never receive ratification by three-fourths of usa. Much to their surprise, the amendment was ratified by one state legislature afterwards another, and on February 25, 1913, with the certification by Secretarial assistant of Country Philander C. Knox, the Sixteenth Subpoena took effect. Even so in 1913, due to generous exemptions and deductions, less than 1 pct of the population paid income taxes at the charge per unit of only 1 per centum of cyberspace income. This document settled the constitutional question of how to tax income and, by so doing, effected dramatic changes in the American way of life.^[13]

The possibility of amending the Constitution helped ensure its ratification, although many feared the powerful federal government information technology created would deprive them of their rights. To allay their anxieties, the framers promised that a Bill of Rights safeguarding individual liberties would be added following ratification. These ten amendments were formally added to the document in 1791 and other amendments followed over the years.One of the problems with the Manufactures of Confederation was the difficulty of irresolute it. To prevent this difficulty from recurring, the framers provided a method for amending the Constitution that required a ii-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and in 3-quarters of state legislatures to approve a change.

Questions to Consider

1. Briefly explain the difference betwixt civil liberties and civil rights.

   Show Respond

   liberties are personal freedoms; rights are guarantees the government volition not treat individuals unequally with respect to liberties

2. Why is habeas corpus an of import protection?

   Show Answer

   to prevent the government from denying due process

3. Has the 10th Amendment been circumvented by the Supreme Courtroom?

   Show Reply

   many people believe the court should allow states to piece of work through processes of change; open up for debate

4. Was the Bill of Rights a necessary addition to the Constitution? Defend your answer.

   Bear witness Respond

   personal opinion

5. Is the federal regime too powerful?

   Show Answer

   personal opinion

6. What new amendments should be added to the Constitution? Why?

   Bear witness Answer

   personal opinion

7. What issue regarding Commencement Amendment protections causes y'all the about business?

   Evidence Answer

   personal stance

Term to Remember

amendment–power to change or add to the U.S. Constitution;formal method of changing or adapting the rules for governing

bill of attainder–trial by legislature rather than court system

Bill of Rights–the get-go 10 amendments to the U.Southward. Constitution; most were designed to protect fundamental rights and liberties

civil liberties–limitations on the power of government, designed to ensure personal freedoms

civil rights–guarantees of equal treatment by authorities government

due process clause–provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that limit regime ability to deny people "life, liberty, or property" on an unfair basis; procedural rules designed to ensure equal treatment of all individuals

ex post facto law–subsequently the fact; laws enacting retroactive punishment

habeas corpus–present the body; regime may not suspend due procedure protections; government may non hold an individual indefinitely without acknowledging charges against the individual

---

Source: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/americangovernment/chapter/constitutional-change/

Posted by: georgewrond1958.blogspot.com

Share this post