Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Amending the US constitution process
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.
Recommended: Amending the US constitution process
The Constitution of a country is the fundamental law of the land—the basis on which all other laws are made and enforced. It has been described as a “superior or supreme law” with “perhaps greater efficiency and authority”, and “higher sanctity”, and more permanence than ordinary legislation. Nevertheless, a suitable provision for amendment is considered to be a part of the very nature of the Constitution. A democratic Constitution has to be particularly responsive to changing conditions, since a Government founded on the principle of popular sovereignty, “must make possible the fresh assertion of the popular will as that will change”
According to John Burgess, a complete Constitution consists of three fundamental parts. The first and the
…show more content…
Prof. A.V. Dicey defines two types of Constitutions— the flexible as ‘one under which every law of every description can legally be changed with the same ease and in the same manner by one and the same body’, and the rigid Constitutions as ‘one under which certain laws generally known as constitutional or fundamental laws, cannot be changed in the same manner as ordinary laws’.
The term “amendment” when used with respect to a Constitution, includes all meanings such as alteration, repeal, variation, addition, revision, or deletion of any provision of the Constitution by following the constitutional process. It can be said to include every kind of change that is brought about in the Constitution by the process of amendment. In the legal system it is used to amend the Constitution but not to end the Constitution. The essence of a written Constitution lies in the procedure prescribed for amendment of the Constitution.
For example, Garner holds that "the most definite source of Constitutional expansion particularly in republican states is, of course, formal amendment of the written instrument in accordance with the method of procedure set forth by it. Provision for its own alteration
Originalism, an orthodox principle of legal interpretation, focuses on interpretation pursuant to the original understanding of constitutional words . This incorporates arguments from the ‘text, context, purpose and structure of the constitution’. The originalist method of constitutional in...
After the American Revolution, America had earned it’s freedom from Britain. In order to govern this new country the Articles of Confederation was created. This document was flawed by the colonists fear of putting too much power into a central government. Knowing the document needed to be fixed a constitutional convention was called. The document created at this convention has been our constitution ever since. But even the Constitution was meet with criticism. One major concern when writing the constitution was how to protect the citizens rights. The Constitution did this through the preamble, the legislative process, the limit of presidential terms, the judicial branch, and the bill of rights.
The absence of a codified constitution raises numerous questions. The main one being,
In conclusion, equivalent contentions on the constitution being static or adaptable demonstrates that certain parts of looking at the constitution shows alternate points of view on whether it adjusts to the needs of the Australian public. Subsequently, the general population ought to be mindful of any alterations made or to be made to guarantee the significance and needs of the nation is fulfilled.
The Constitution of the United States is one of the most iconic and important documents of all time. However, when it was first generated, its writing and ratification caused some major concerns. The purpose of the Constitution was to address the great number of issues of a new nation. To be more specific, the Constitution was meant to resolve the political, economic, and social problems of the country. Nevertheless, the document spurred much discussion and concern over people’s rights, the economy, and political corruption.
Debating which constitutional form of government best serves democratic nations is discussed by political scientist Juan Linz in his essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”. Linz compares parliamentary systems with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous. Linz points out the flaws as presidentialism as he sees them and sites rigidity of fixed terms, the zero-sum game and political legitimacy coupled with lack of incentive to form alliances as issues to support his theory that the parliamentary system is superior to presidentialism.
Trying to apply new reforms in the Canadian constitution has been no easy task. The mixture of the parliamentary/monarchy powers denies the citizens’ direct participation in the government’s decision-making process and does not allow the existence of a complete free democratic system. A true democracy simply cannot fully exist with a restricted monarch selecting type of government and any reforms must be applied to make Canadian constitutions’ laws be based on democratic principles.
In 1787, the Constitution, created by a group of men known as the “Framers”, is the highest law in the United States. At first, the Constitution was not ratify because it did not have a bill of rights which is a list of rights that belong to the people. Therefore to allow changes to the Constitution, the Framers created the amendment process. In 1791, congress proposed twelve changes to the Constitution. Ten of the twelve changes were agreed to by the states and were called “The Bill of Rights.” Some of these rights include the right of free speech, the right to practice your own religion and the right to be silent if you are arrested.
... document and not the will of those in powers is tremendous. Except for the 17 of the 27 amendments that make part of the United States of America constitution, the constitution has remained largely the same. What has changed, and continues to change, is the interpretation of some parts that have expanded to include contexts that were not envisioned by our founding fathers. It is truly remarkable that the Constitution has sustained many powerful historical events over time and today remains pretty much intact.
The document I chose to write about is the United States Constitution. When the thirteen British colonies in North America declared their independence in 1776, they laid down that “governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The “colonies” had to establish a government, which would be the framework for the United States. The purpose of a written constitution is to define and therefore more specifically limit government powers. After the Articles of Confederation failed to work in the 13 colonies, the U.S. Constitution was created in 1787.
The Constitution which was written 229 years ago, comes with many strengths and weaknesses. One such strength is that the Constitution is a living document. A living document is a document that has the ability to be updated and or drafted upon. The original document had twelve amendments. These amendments were sent to the states for ratification in 1789 and out of the twelve, ten of them were passed by the vote of eleven states in the union. Since that time of the first change in our constitution, it has been added to twenty-seven times. The Constitution is America’s founding document that has lasted for 229 years; it has changed as the country has changed. (THE CHARTERS OF FREEDOM A NEW WORLD AT HAND) The Constitution being a living document was intended to be adapted by future generations and because of its adaptability, it could have new amendments ratified and add to
In making this argument this essay seeks to five things. Firstly, to define democracy within the contemporary context offering the key characteristics of a modern re...
While an uncodified constitution has the advantages of dynamic, adaptability and flexibility to meet the ever-changing needs of the society , it poses much difficulty in pinpointing the ultimate constitutional principle that should provide legitimacy in the British constitution. This results in a battle between two broad schools of thought––political constitutionalism and legal constitutionalism.
The foundation of the modern political system was laid in the times when the world was strangled in slavery. In those moments, enlightened minds in Greek came up with the new system that was there to remain for the next thousands of years. This system, now known as democracy, is a form of government in which supreme power is vested to the people themselves. People have the right to elect their leaders directly or indirectly through a scheme of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. A new democratic government is usually established after every 4-5 years, and it is trusted with the responsibility to cater to the needs of all the people irrespective of the fact that they voted for them or not. Although the minorities may not be very pleased with the idea of democracy, however, a democratic government is certainly the best because it establishes social equality among people, reduces the conflicts in the state to a minimum, gives the chance to vote repeatedly, and creates patriotism.
Chief Justice Pius Langa refers to the concept that transformative constitutionalism cannot have one single meaning and that, “in keeping with the spirit of transformation that there is no single stable understanding of the meaning of transformative constitutionalism. This is also shown with regard to Chief Justice Moseneke he has said, “the meaning of transformation in juridicial terms is as highly contested as it is difficult to formulate,’’ this then shows that the topic of transforming a country and transformative constitutionalism as a whole is ...