17th Amendment To The Senate Of The United States

Have you ever wondered what would happen if your worst fears became reality? For the founding father and crafters of the U.S. Constitution those fears have come to roost. What was originally designed to be the foundation of our country, and the law of the land; has now been amended out of existence. The ratification of the 17th Amendment changed the country’s political landscape and weakened the U.S. Constitution by allowing Senators to be directly elected by popular vote instead of by the legislatures of the states they represent. This Amendment was a byproduct of the Democratic Progressive movement. It was believed by some that it would correct the procedural issues and perceived political

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.

Despite the fact that all races were permitted to vote, women did not completely have that benefit until the nineteenth amendment was set up in 1920. The current development for women to vote traces back to the start of the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, when supporters of a Constitutional Amendment, wanted to permit women to vote, gathered. While their development was moderated amid the Civil War years, the two noteworthy suffragist associations united after the war and pushed forward with the development that was completed, after numerous troublesome years in the nineteenth amendment. The nineteenth amendment expresses that the privileges of citizens of the United States should not be denied or compressed to vote due to gender differences.

Summary: Some of the issues were the people that denied to agree or support the constitution. Some states did not favor the way the government limited the power for the federal government because they were scared it would overrule state laws and disliked how citizens were able to control as well. Analysis: There were issues because several of states took quite a while to ratify the constitution. The constitution needed at least 9 out of 13 colonies to ratify, however the states did not support the new system. It took 10 months for 9 colonies to ratify. Although, it took almost an year the constitution was

Every effort the North made to pacify the South and/or to help the Blacks was blatantly rejected by the South. If the North declared one law, the South would find a loophole and thus the country was a mess of disunity and debate over Constitutional changes (?) (Doc. A and B). This tug-of-war is also anther reason for why no social changes resulted from constitutional changes from 1860 to 1877. Even if the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were wholeheartedly radical and revolutionary constitutional changes, social changes, never mind developments, were not in any way possible because of strong Southern resistance (Doc. G).

Until the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment, the Constitution of the United States had retained a certain character which properly belonged to the fundamental form of law of the Republic at the time of its creation. The matters with which it dealt were simply three types. State sovereignty, through the division of powers between the Federal and the State governments, the inalienable rights of the American citizens and the structure of the Federal government itself. These were areas that it was felt by the framers to be of the utmost importance and should be safeguarded from the uncertainty of the majority whim of the time. They believed that there should be no room for doubt in regards to the limits of Federal

--Through thorough analysis, what are the reasons for the Anti-Federalists’ opposition to ratifying the Constitution?

The 19th Amendment was ratified on August 18, 1920. The 19th Amendment provided men and women with equal voting rights. The United States Constitution created in 1789 unattended the subject of suffrage. In the beginning of the 1800s many women suffrage supporters marched, lectured and even practiced civil disobedience to achieve a big change in the constitution. It took decades to accomplish this around 1878 is when the amendment was first introduced in congress.

Not everyone in the United States agreed with the Nineteenth Amendment being passed. Two months after the Federal Government declared that the Amendment had been incorporated to the Constitution in August of 1920, Oscar Lesser “sued to stop two women [Cecilia Street Waters and Mary D. Randolph] to vote in Baltimore, Maryland. Lesser “believed the Maryland Constitution limited the suffrage to men”. He said that Maryland had refused to vote regarding the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, and should not be subject to its application.. In 1922, Leser v. Garnett, was argued before the United States Supreme Court. The plaintiffs of the case argued that the Nineteenth Amendment was not passed constitutionally. They claimed there were “three principal grounds” to their argument, which were: that the power to amend the Constitution did not cover this amendment "because of its character"; that several states that had ratified the amendment despite the fact that their state constitutions prohibited women from voting; and that, in particular, the ratifications of the states of Tennessee and West Virginia were were invalid because they were adopted without following the rules of legislative procedure in place in those states”. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the amendment was passed constitutionally. In their decision, the court responded to each of the three arguments. Lesser’s first argument claimed that if Amendment’s are added without the State’s consent, it

Which is one of the main points of government, especially democracy. In the Progressive Era, the 17th amendment was passed to fix this. The amendment stated that, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state…for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures”. It had been decided that all states would get two representatives in government.

The Sixteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution gives the United States government the right to tax income.

When forming the United States constitution the founding fathers of America disagreed on many issues and had to make compromises. One such compromise which called for some representation based on population in the lower house the House of Representatives and equal representation in the upper house the senate. (Text book pg. 163). This was a compromise because it combined how less populated states wanted equal representation with how states with large populations, especially states in the southern slave’s states, wanted representation based on population (Text book pg. 162). In order to get members of the Anti-Federalist party to ratify the constitution it was necessary to pass the 10th Amendment that compose the Bill of Rights in

This theory was also carried over into the legislative branch, where the public opinion was foregone in favor of elected and appointed lawmakers (recall that the early Senators were appointed by their respective state’s legislature). Another was the militant nature of their world. Still entrenched in the difficult life of the pioneer era, the Revolution was a sign of a wonderful future but a still exceedingly difficult present, and ensuring the protection of our newborn nation was a huge priority. Though that appears similar to the present-day psychology of a nation at war with terrorists, it is the monumental difference between knowing who was enemy and friend then, and believing anyone can be an enemy today. It is clear that the Framers lived in a completely different world than the modern-day American, but that in and of itself does not prove the obsolescence of the Constitution. The Constitution was inherently designed to last forever. The original Bill of Rights specified freedoms and liberties in a vagueness that, ideally, created a clear-cut definition of any ideological dispute but also left room for evolution. But, were they successful? Is the Constitution a truly timeless document? For the purposes of this particular debate, we will focus on the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution; these three

The special rules in the house are a tool used in order to set certain parameters and help accommodate floor action for a certain bill. Special rules help get controversial and difficult bills through as most sponsors of bills of this sort are not able to get garner the necessary two thirds or majority support. When two thirds support is not possible congressmen will go to the rules committee and request the special rules resolution. Special rules help set up the order amendments are voted on, the length of the debates, and what amendment can be voted on .Steven Smith describes a special rule called a king-of-the-hill rule which allows for a progression of votes on different amendments which are usually full substitutes of the bill in question.

Despite the fact that senators were selected by the state parliaments until 1913, Lincoln and Douglas took their contentions straight to the citizens. The time of the operations, the setting of sectional enmity in which it was argued, the slavery issue,