How and why did the Massachusetts constitution differ from those of the other states?
341874
maybe it has had more time to develop its ideas and ideals. it was one of the first colonies, and was the melting pot for the revolution
69111
What's the difference between a commonwealth and a state?\n\nThere are four U.S. states that are officially known as commonwealths - Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Massachusetts. Despite the difference in name, there is no difference in the relationship or governance of a state versus a commonwealth. \n\n------------------------------------------------\nA state is a sovereign entity. According to my dictionary a commonwealth is a state with self government, in other words a democracy or republic. \n\n \nIt depends on what kind of commonwealth you're talking about; some consider Puerto Rico a commonwealth (which has some benefits of federal assistance, but restricted voting rights, etc). \n\nHowever, if you're asking about Virginia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, or Pennsylvania (the four "states" in the US that call themselves a commonwealth), there essentially is no difference between these commonwealths and "regular" states. They have simply elected to refer to themselves as a commonwealth instead of a state; this does not significantly differentiate their structure or self-government in any way from other states in the Union. \n\n \nThere is one other difference between a state and commonwealth. If someone has you arrested for a crime against them, but later decide that they really don't want to press charges. A commonwealth will pick up the charges in place of that person, and continue to prosecute the offender whereas a state doesn't have the authority to do so. \n\nThis last answer is simply not correct. Although I have no idea about any differences in a "commonwealth", all states are in charge of prosecutorial discretion. That is, the state (through the applicable prosecutor) decides whether to prosecute an offender. The victim never gets to make that decision. However, as a practical matter, the victim's decision will, of course, heavily influence the prosecutor's decision making process.
1006263
No.  The whole Constitution was a compromise between the large states, like Virginia, and New York, and the small states like Rhode Island.  \nWe probably should have stuck with the Articles of Confederation.
713883
Because there are times when a state's constitution and that of the United States are contradictory.
242485
After the Revolutionary War the U.S. Constitution was formed. This at first contained NO rights for these groups of people. But later on when the further amendments were added to the constitution this included some rights for woman and slavery was abolished (banned) As for the Indians many of them were long gone by then.
487823
At the Constitutional Convention 1789 each State considered itself a separate soverign country and the Constitution was essentially, the States giving up some of their inherent rights to a central government.  Think of the formation of the European Union. \nTransportation was by horse and wagon.  People did not know of anyone not within their local area.  Most delegates were afraid that voters just would not know enough about the canidates to make an educated choice.  Delegates did think that voters would know their local personages and could make a choice among those persons.\nDelegates from small states were afraid that their interests would be ignored if a candidate could be elected just with the votes from Virginia and Massacusuts (the two most populated states).\nFrom all of this, and a few other more minor factors, a compromise was reached:\n    So that voters would be able to intelligently exercise their choice, they would vote for state delegates (electors) who would then use their better knowlege of the candidates to vote for the person the delegates thought the persons who voted for them would choose if they knew the candidates.  For example, I'm in Goose Fork and I've never been outside of Goose Fork.  I know Dr. Smith and Rev. White.  I vote for Dr. Smith as a elector.  Dr. Smith goes to the state capital talks with the other electors and decides that the people who voted for him would prefer John Adams to Aaron Burr.\nTo minimize the advantage candidates from larger states might have, the Convention gave each state electors equal to the number of Senators and Representitives the state had.  Each state gets two Senators and Representatives are allocated by population, thereby giving votes in smaller states greater weight.\n\nExcuse the spelling but the spell check is on the fritz.
346378
Question 1: The 13 colonial governments took a variety of forms. By 1775, eight of the original colonies had royal governors, who were appointed by the king. Three- Maryland, Pennsylvania, & Delaware were under proprietors who themselves chose the governors. And two- Connecticut and Rhonde Island elected their own governors under self-governoring charters. Practically every colony utilized a two-house legislative body. The upper bosy,or council was normally appointed by the crown in the royal colonies. The lower house, as the popular branch was elected by the people, or rather those who owned enough property to qualify as voters.  (I will get back with you on the other answers)
90379
Because the writers of the state constitution decided to call it the Court of Appeals instead. There's not really much of a difference. The Federal Supreme Court is a court of appeals.
723149
The UK does not have a written consitution like the USA does.\n\nOur constitution is based on three things; conventions, statutes and historical writings.\n\nSearching for 'The British/UK constitution' or any low level British politics website should give you lots more information.
163014
Ahh, the Connecticut Compromise.  Small states wanted each state to be equal.  Large states, obviously didn't like that idea.  They felt that since they had more people, they should have a larger share of representation in government.  The Connecticut Compromise brought the two sides together with the Bicameral legislator - House (based on population of the state) and Senate (making all states equal).
98659
It was envisioned to be a foundation of all laws.  \n\nEssentially, it gives the government specific powers and restrictions.  It delineated which branch of the government can do what.  But most importantly, it provides certain inalienable rights and freedoms for the people.  \n\nThe constitution is relatively short (compared to other countries).  That is actually by design.  The framers actually envisioned that it would change from time to time, that's why we have all these amendments.  \n\nThe constitution is also the supreme law of the land.  Any federal or state law contrary to it is invalid.  The Supreme Court gets the final say on whether any law is unconstitutional.
704789
The world is different than it was when the Constitution was ratified in 1789, and this is a process to update it to the current standards. It is also a way to clarify some of the language that may be vague (as in the 11th Amendment).\n\nFor example, in Article I, Section 2, it use to state, "...which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons". This was amended by the 14 Amendment to be, "any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States". This was later changed with the 19th Amendment (Women's Suffrage) and the 26th Amendment (Voting Age Set to 18 Years).
935993
The Constitution of the United States
232331
The main change was the creation of a strong federal government. Parts of that included a federal executive office (which did not exist in the Articles), a bicameral legislature with representation based on population (each state got one vote in the Articles), and federal powers to raise money and armies (in the Articles, states were merely asked for money, not required to give it). And perhaps most importantly, under the Articles, laws had to be passed unanimously, so nothing ever got done.
566799
I think it was James Madison's wife (may have been Abigail Adams) who suggested that the Constitution said a lot about the organization of the government, but did nothing to specifically protect people, so then he went on a mad tear to construct some of those "inalienable rights" aforementioned.  But he didn't just make them up.  At least one of the Amendments was based on the constitution of the Virginia colony. \n\nThe importance of the Bill of Rights is to address what the state can and can't do to individuals.  Most of the Constitution divides up powers and provides checks and balances, but the Bill of Rights specifically protects people from the bad habits of government.
969564
The Founding Fathers built checks and balances into our system of government,but the constitution was based on the Bible. Diversity is a correlative, but not a cause.
189917
laws vary from each state on this matter?