why was the eighteenth amendment proposed?
406556
Because people were oout of their mind.
357063
The 21st Amendment repealed or "undid" the 18th Amendment. The 18th Amendment was referred to as Prohibition, and basically made it illegal to buy, sell, make, transport or possess alcohol (beer, wine, liquor). The 21st Amendment made it legal again to have alcohol but also applied some regulations and laid the groundwork for licensing and taxing alcoholic beverages.
345893
The eighteenth amendment was done away with; it was about the prohibition of alcoholic beverages.  Consequently, many people made their own beer and liquor, which was called bootlegging.
676602
The 14th Amendment was enacted to protect the children of freed slaves from those who would try and claim (even after the Civil War) that blacks were still "property" or 3/5ths of a person. The 14 Amendment needs to be amended because way too many illegal immigrants are using it as a loophole for their anchor babies.
747459
Well, that question is a very broad question, but I can give the general overview.  The newly created government in the 1780's is most likely reffering to the United States Constitution.  This Constitution was created due to the lack of federal rights in the Articles of Confederation.  The Articles did not allow Congress to tax or recieve soldiers from the independent states but rather ask for them.  The Articles were considered weak and they were essentially thrown out.  Whether this was legal or not is debatable.  The British also had a great impact on the Constitution because they "abused" the Americans during the revolution and before the revolution.  The Americans therefore, created the Bill of Rights were granted rights to the common man and the states.  Arguably, most of the Bill of Rights have some sort of connection to what the British had done before and during the revolution such as the Second Amendment.  The Second Amendment states, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."  Many believe this was a response to the Quartering Act Britain established before the revolution.  Many Enlightenment ideas from Britain (like philsophers from John Locke) and other European countries greatly influenced the American government.  Ideas such as freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and others sparked from Europea.  The ideas of the individual "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration of Independence were derived from John Locke's "Life, Liberty, and Property."  Of course, the framers (of the Constitution) were very intelligent and substituted "property" with "Pursuit of Happiness" because they did not want to debate over owning slaves yet (for that would occur later in the Civil War).
865275
I don't know of such a plan, but if it existed, James Madison et. al. took care of that when they drafted the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (part of our Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791). \n\nIt says that any powers not expressly given to the Federal government belong to either the individual states or to the people.\n\nSure would be nice if Congress re-read its own Constitution from time to time, wouldn't it?
169726
a good proposal for an amendment for the Constitution would be  to change the requirements to be president.  you would still have to be 35 years old and be a resident in the United States for 14 years, but change the natural-born citizen part.  instead of being a natural-born citizen make it be a United States citizen for 40 years.  this way people whose parents move here when they are kids; these would be the only ways that they know and know as much as any other kid here.  i think this would be a grand topic to talk about in your paper and could easly elaberate on with examples.  remember to explain yourself and put your heart and soul into it to get a good grade.
296987
Women can vote...that's the only one that mattered ;) haha\n\n\nThe Constitution has a total of 27 amendments. Here you go--you asked ;)\n\nFirst Amendment\n\nThe First Amendment addresses the rights of freedom of speech and the press; the right of peaceful assembly; and the right of petition. It also addresses freedom of religion, both in terms of prohibiting the establishment of religion and protecting the right to free exercise of religion.\n[edit]\n\nSecond Amendment\n\n    main article: Second Amendment\n\nThe Second Amendment states, in its entirety, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Compared to other amendments, there is little case law about the Second Amendment.\n[edit]\n\nThird Amendment\n\nThe Third Amendment prohibits the government from using private homes as quarters for soldiers without the consent of the owners. Much as the Second Amendment, there is largely no case law. There has been no Supreme Court case law, and only one odd case, Engblom v. Carey, which has even addressed the Third Amendment.[2]\n[edit]\n\nFourth Amendment\n\nThe Fourth Amendment guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. A general right to privacy has been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court (See Griswold v. Connecticut), including a right to medical abortion.\n[edit]\n\nFifth through Eighth Amendments\n\nThe next four amendments deal with the system of justice. The fifth forbids trial for a major crime except after indictment by a grand jury; prohibits repeated trials for the same offense after an acquittal (except in certain very limited circumstances); forbids punishment without due process of law; and provides that an accused person may not be compelled to testify against himself (this is also known as "Taking the fifth" or "Pleading the fifth"). This is regarded as the "rights of the accused" amendment. The sixth guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury (of peers), guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. The seventh assures trial by jury in civil cases involving anything valued at more than 20 United States dollars at the time, which is currently worth $300 presently, when accounting for inflation. The eighth forbids excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment. In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth and sixth amendments were to be read to all persons placed under arrest, and as a result these two amendments have become known as the Miranda warning or Miranda rights.\n[edit]\n\nNinth and Tenth Amendments\n\nThe last two of the first ten amendments contain very broad statements of constitutional authority.\n\nThe Ninth Amendment declares that the listing of individual rights in the Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; that the people have other unenumerated rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The right of privacy has been interpreted as one of these unenumerated rights by many people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms (the protection of which right the Second Amendment prohibits infringement) is also often interpreted as another of these unenumerated rights by many people. [3] Other, pre-existing, non-enumerated rights, besides just these two, continue to exist because of the Ninth Amendment. There is little case law.\n\nThe Tenth Amendment provides that powers the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the states from having are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The phrase "or to the people", somewhat puzzling as to its applicabil
966043
It sounds like a good idea. Here's the problem.\n\nUnlike at the time of formation, we as a nation are very polarized. There is a huge mass of people, often in the majority, that think it's acceptable to force majority religions on the minority, ok for the government to ignore the laws at will, and ok to discriminate against couples based on their gender.\n\nThe current constitution may be flawed, but given the level of hate and partisan brain-damage currently rampant in the US, it's scary to think of what else they might come up with.
76883
The 21st Amendment is the only amendment that directly repealed another Amendment - it shows that public opinion can drastically change in a relatively short period of time.  When the 18th Amendment was adopted, many people thought a serious social vice would be eliminated.  The Amendment, although it did reduce alcohol consumption, met with widespread resistance.  It also caused courts to have more cases of bootlegger prosecutions than they could handle and organized crime gained power and influence in many communities.  Then, during the Great Depression, Democrats thought the alcohol industry could be a source of employment and taxes.  Congress, fearing that the amendment wouldn't be ratified by conservative state legislatures, had the amendment voted on by special conventions within each state.
892664
The main context was the right to form militias and protect themselves from the "Government" not directly you have the right to have a firearm.  The reason is at the time it was not imaginable that you would NOT have a right to own firearms.  The reason for the 2nd amendment was to ensure that the new citizens of the US had the right to form militias without fear of prejudice from the government to disban them.
955295
This amendment was added as a specific response to the Anti-Federalists (Madison, Jay and Hamilton) who were arguing that they were afraid if a specific right wasn't written into the Constitution the government could infringe on it. It was designed as a catchall to ensure that just because a specific right wasn't spelled out in black and white the government would not be allowed to simply trample it. This, by far and away, was the most important aspect of ensuring that the document that framed the fledgling US government was one that decided what the GOVERNMENT could and could not do rather than a basis for what the PEOPLE could and could not do.
496026
Yes,use your imagination JUST_,I would vote for this if it were to follow the original constitution.There is a lot of"MEN" who would support having this come to fruition.We have a country that rejects its men,allows illegals to come in to any state,allows women to kill their unborn children,who would be living breathing people if they didn`t and allow people who are not citizens to acquire disability who can not speak English.Something that a six week night course could cure.The list could go on for hours but In the correct form I WOULD do what you ask. GOOD QUESTION!
54872
During the Constitutional Convention it was agreed (to get support for the Constitution) that one of the first acts of congress would be to draft a Bill of Rights.  James Madison was assigned this drafting task.  He substantially based his efforts on the work of George Mason who was the primary writer of the Virginia Declaration of Rights.  (Within these efforts was what would become the Sixth Amendment.)  The end result became the proposed Bill of Rights which was offered by the First Congress to the several States.
146377
Here ya go:\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:\nthey've already proposed an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)
252068
No, it wouldn't. It was based on: IN GOD WE TRUST. Too bad others have come along and took what our forefathers had in mind when writing our constitution and twisted it. Too bad there is barely any freedoms left in this country to enjoy without being lashed out at against by some group or another. I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think of our "progress" if they could see us now?
70906
It's not obsolete, but both major politcal parties would like to do away with certain freedoms.  \nRepublicans obviously are violating the 4th Amendment regarding illegal search & seizures.\nDemocrats would love to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, which guarantees a a citizen's right to bear arms ( firearms).