pros people in changing the constitution?
146854
This shouldn't be changed ever!
106227
Gee, if there were only some kind of, oh I don't know, CONSTITUTION... or BILL OF RIGHTS.\nSeems like that would help.
60597
a constitutional ammendment.. very unprobable... \nthere are several ways to initiate the process for ammending the constitution, none of which are likely on this or any other issue.
809700
people\n\n\n\n\nWe the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
754167
Basically it is to amend the Constitution in whatever country to a new updated/amended one. It also can be used in any charter be it for boat building or whatever...\n\nHope this helps\n\nJems xXx
625543
Dear Friend,\n\nThe only way to change a law is to get a new law passed.  You need to find a member of the state legislature who will support your point of view.  Try to think which party would more likely support this change.  Then start writing to members of that party in the state legislature.\n\nYour Friend,\nFrancesois
67189
No. All it does is teach discrimination. People will argue that it help some people but violating the constitution just to help some people is not a good idea. \nIf you want to help the disadvantage the time to start is when they are young and in school.
494102
Sure, if you would like to amend the United States Constitution... What do you suggest? Whipping? Caning? How about forced amputations for certain offenses? Branding? If you think these are good ideas, I suggest there are certain other places to live in this world where you perhaps might feel more comfortable. Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, North Korea... I don't think they have a problem with prison overcrowding, maybe you'd like it in one of those places.
404079
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.\n\nThe first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).\n\nThe second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.\n\nRegardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.\n\nIt is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):
156198
A new constitution for who? What country?
776792
I wouldn't; it is an outdated system that needs to be completely overhauled...the genius of the founding fathers is that they knew that they could not anticipate what the future would be and therefore built in a system to change things as the country evoled...i.e the second amendment and the electoral college both need to be reconsidered
1030061
Why is it right now.\nThe right time to change or make amendments to the constitution is when something that affects the whole nation needs to be corrected by the federal government, not the states.\nSo right now would not be any better or worse a time than any other.  Depends on what you want to do to it.
97011
The people have the constitutional right to change the government by voting in local and national elections.\n\nIf you mean change the form of government, say from a Republic to a monarchy, for example, no, that isn't in there.
771022
The primary purpose of the Constitution is to limit, or slow, the power of government to intrude upon the citizens as a whole. It is to protect the minority from the majority and visa versa as far as who is in office. The will of the majority of the people will always occur if it is consistent and holds true for a long time. The political representation will have to conform to the will of the people if they want to keep their jobs. \n\nThe process of proposing a bill, reviewing, debating, revising, going through two houses, and then the executive branch and then passing into law is suppose to be long.... but unfortunately politicians trample all over this by doing shot gun bills with more slips to it than line of dancing girls... but that's another story...
818777
Excellent question.  Any proposed change that would violate our State Constitution, must be presented to the people so the majority can decide whether or not that constitutional change should be made.  Proposed laws, that don't change the constitution can be voted on in Lansing by our lawmakers.  Hope this helps you understand.
878852
That's a long list.... instead of giving the answers, I'll give you a link to study.....\n\nBut to answer quickly....\n\nThe constitution was put into effect in 1789, it does serve the people by making "Expo Facto" laws illegal, provide postal service to all citizens and divides power among 3 branches of government just to name a few. It was made even more powerful for the people when the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) was passed and the amendments were ratified.
209490
Since the Electoral College is specifially provided for in the U.S. Constitution, if you don't like it your lawful choices are:\n\n1) propose and campaign for an amendment to the Constitution (2/3 vote in each house of Congress + majority vote in 3/4 of the state legislatures)\n\n2) whine\n\nNote that your alternative of having some sort of nationwide referendum (if I've read you correctly) is not one of the options.\n\n(Incidentally, I don't think you have a ghost of a chance of changing it anytime soon.  Too many of us believe in the FEDERAL system and don't want everything decided by a few big population centers.)\n\nAlmost forgot to answer the first question -- yes, the American people WERE allowed to vote for the Electoral College system, at least as much as for anything else in the Constitution, THROUGH their representatives (in each state) who voted to ratify the Constitution.  (That's called a representative --or, if I dare say it, 'republican' form of government, and it's the one we've had for over 200 years.)