Modification of the Constitution

A Constitution is a document which consists of regulations and laws which govern a state or country. In the United States, Federalists and Antifederalists contributed greatly to the scope of American’s political, constitutional, and democratic history. For example, Federalists strongly supported the Constitution and played a key role in helping to shape it from the 18th century with a hopeful aim of strengthening the government. On the opposite side, Antifederalists opposed the constitution and fought for it to be amended. Antifederalists have always been dominant in western and northern New England, the Hudson River Valley in New York, Western Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. It is also very rampant in the south side of Virginia, upcountry South Carolina, and North Carolina. The “middle-class” community, which was mostly comprised of farmers, was fully against the constitution (Allen & Lloyd, 2001).

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.

After the Founding Fathers of America wrote our Constitution there was one more step they had to each achieve in order for it to go into effect: ratifying it. In order to ratify the Constitution nine out of the thirteen states had to agree to adopt it. The process of ratifying the Constitution turned into a debate between two groups: the Federalists and the Anti Federalist.

Since the beginning, America has been considered synonymous with freedom and new beginnings. The first revolutionaries fought with these ideals in mind and saw them as achievable goals, no matter how far away they actually were. Now years after, America has reached its goal and declared its independence from the tyrannical Great Britain. As the United States of America grows in both prestige and population, a strong and organized government is necessary for it to be as strong as it can be. A constitution such as the one being proposed will do exactly this, in addition to providing the nation with a purpose. Granted, there are many valid arguments against the Constitution being posed. However when considering the bigger picture, the Constitution will do more good than harm. Ultimately ratifying the new Constitution is the best option for America in its current situation in order to

Throughout American history the constitution has been the framework for democracy. Written in 1787, the constitution was a great conception for the thirteen colonies. Now two-hundred and twenty-eight years later the United States is not a county of freedom fighting European-Americans. In this diverse and modern society concerns have come to surface as to whether the constitution should be ratified for the future to come. Ratifying the constitution sounds like a good notion, but is nearly impossible to do. I believe the constitution should stand as is but allow another document arise that corrects the loop holes of the constitution.

The framers of our Constitution knew that time has a way of changing countries and their citizens. Our country was in a whirlwind of change in 1789 as people were experiencing freedom from the tyranny of England for the first time in their lives. Our country was being molded and formed into a great nation by the founding fathers. Expectations and rules had to be set to protect the rights of the minorities and majorities. Amendments to the Constitution were written to ensure equality for all in changing times.

The last reason I want to keep the Electoral College is because a direct popular election would cause chaos. America is already screwed up enough; we don’t need a presidential election to make it worse. There would be too many petitions, riots, and all kinds of things going on during the election. The people and congress like the way the Electoral College is set up. Also, we don’t need to change it. Doing that would take forever, because if we switch to a direct popular election, many presidents would only win by popular vote. The electoral votes should determine who is president, not how popular he or she is. No one region has the absolute majority of electoral votes that is required to be president. In very close popular elections, it’s possible that the candidate who won a slight majority of the popular vote may not be the person who is elected president. Whether the popularity of that one candidate is concentrated on very few states or spread out across America. The popular

The U.S. should also abolish the Electoral College because it depresses voter turnout. For example, during the recent presidential campaign the candidates focused most of their time on what so-called "battleground states," states in which there

If I had the opportunity to change the Constitution of the United States of America, I would change the Electoral College system. Like many other Americans, I feel that the Electoral College system is not effective. It caries a notion of the state versus the people, electors oversee a large part of the country and is change the answer to this issue? I believe that times have changed and we need to reform the electoral system all while not changing the constitution.

The 27th amendment was proposed on September 25, 1789, and it was ratified on May 7, 1992. It was necessary to create this amendment because it was used to force congressman to focus on their work, and not personal issues. The 27th amendment proposed that Congress couldn’t raise their salaries right away; any salary increases are pushed to after an election. In the U.S today, this amendment allows people to trust the government more, and not be suspicious about their work. When the amendment was being ratified, there were many controversies. During the late 1700’s, James Madison only got six states—Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Vermont- to ratify the amendment. However, that

In the wake of sixteen prolonged, a very long time of consideration by delegates from the thirteen British settlements, the Articles of Confederation was sent to these states for endorsement on November 15, 1777 (Hoffert, 1992). This was after the presentation of freedom from England in 1776. The authorization of these articles began from March 1, 1781, to March 4, 1789, when they got supplanted by the present Constitution of United States. The articles gave the central government the order to oversee and organize demonstrations of war amid the American Revolution. Any alteration of the Articles required consistent endorsement by the thirteen states.

The Constitution is the cornerstone of America. It has lasted longer than any republican government on Earth. The constitution has lasted far longer than the framers of the constitution had expected. The constitution should not be changed because it is fundamentally sound and applicable to today’s society. That is not to say that there isn’t some changes warranted, but the changes to the constitution are allowed and the process to make these changes via amendment are spelled out within the constitution itself. Currently there are have been approximately 11,000 proposals within congress to amend the Constitution since 1789 of those thirty three have been passed. (Senate.gov)

We should change our constitution for the reason that the political process that we use today is inefficient and unequal. The framers of the constitution made the political process inefficient on the basis that they wanted the government to be powerful enough to protect them from another state but not so powerful that they could take their property. The constitution was set up to protect the minority being that the framers of the constitution were a part of the minority. A way in which the political process is inefficient is that the legislative branch is split up into two branches the House and the Senate. The framers of the constitution did this to give states power in the political process as a result of them being independent prior to

To amend the constitution, various steps and procedures must be taken. When either Congress (which takes a two-thirds majority vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives), or a constitutional convention (which takes two-thirds of the State legislatures) want to propose an amendment, they give it to the National Archives and Records Administration. The Congress proposes the amendment as a joint resolution to the National Archives and Records Administrations Office of the Federal Register for the publication process. The Office of the Federal Register adds legislative notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The Office of the Federal Register also puts together an information package for the States

Our constitution is nation’s basic law “it creates political institutions, allocates power within government, and often provides guarantees to citizens.” (Edwards, Wattenberg, and Lineberry, p. 2). In my opinion as it states in the Government in America in order to understand the government and the laws you first have to understand the constitution. There is nothing that I would change about the Constitution because it does back up us Americans in most situations. The Constitution is made of laws that all must follow even the political leaders. The three branches of power which are judicial executive and legislative all