how is the constitution ammended...whats are the steps to ammend it?
926888
Read the 4th, 5th, and 6th articles of the Constitution. One of them has the answer.
796257
What exactly did you want to know?\n\nFor instance, do you want to know about the debates leading to ratification ... check here http://www.constitution.org/elliot.htm\n\nThis site gives a little more general information: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/ac001/lawpres.html\n\nGood luck with your homework.
527205
You will up hold the Constitution.
75138
The preamble basically outlined the goals of the new Constitution when it was written. It also denotes powers in the government, but not specifically.
975250
the first ten ammendments of the constitution...basically mean this:\n\n1. freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly\n\n2. right to own firearms\n\n3. a soldier must have permission from a houses owner to stay there\n\n4. rights against illegal search and siezure\n\n5. basically you can't be tried twice for the same crime and due process of prosecution \n\n6. more rights on due process...speedy trial and right to counsel\n\n7. right of trial by jury...interesting note...it says anything over $20.00...\n\n8. no excessive bail or cruel or unusual punishment\n\n9. basically you can't use the constitution against people..\n\n10. this ammendment seems to give power to individual states to govern themselves of things not in the constitution to wit..\n\nHeres the whole Bill Of Rights:\n\nTHE BILL OF RIGHTS\nAmendments 1-10 of the Constitution\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution; \n\nResolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely: \n\n\nAmendment I\nCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. \n\n\nAmendment II\nA 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. \n\n\nAmendment III\nNo 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. \n\n\nAmendment IV\nThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. \n\n\nAmendment V\nNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. \n\n\nAmendment VI\nIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. \n\n\nAmendment VII\nIn suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury s
928580
You need to read the Constitution.
1154296
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
514197
27\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
1102642
well, i learnt it in year 6 but lke i have forgotten the exact detail but the main is:\n1. the senate go through the bill\n2. goes to the house of repesentatives\n3. if they lke it they make it a referendum\n\nit may be in the wrong order so yeah... hope its correct\nhope dis helps baibai
371885
You have to look at the Amendments to the Constitution.
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]):
303185
It is already getting an upgrade.  By the time the Bush appointees on SCOTUS get done with it, we won't even recognize it.\n\nIn any case, there is nothing wrong with the Constitution, it designs a very workable and very democratic government.  And it protects the rights of the people by explicitly forbidding the goverment from abridging them.\n\nFunny you should mention language.  Politicians and judges go into contortions twisting the English language in order to bend the plain meaning of the plain language of the Constitution in order to get around the Constitution.\n\nFor example, Bush says that warrantless searches and seizures, which are explicitly forbidden in the Constitution, are his perogative because of Article III.  This article says nothing about that at all.  It does say that the President is the Commander in Chief of the army.\nSo he is saying that because he is commander in chief he can ignore the Constitution any time he wants.\n\nI don't care if you are a Bush supporter and a conservative - you are not doing conservatives any favors by letting them get away with brushing aside the Constitution with language hocus pocus and the sayso of some dude in the White House.\n\nThe oath of office of every official and of every member of every branch of the military is a pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  Because it is the Constitution that makes America, that makes America work, and that makes America the best governed nation in the world.\n\nLet's just leave it alone, ok?
5479
An amendment, duly approved by congress and ratified by the various states, by definition, cannot be unconstitutional. That is the whole point of amendments.\n\nEdit: I just wanted to point out that an amendment does not have to specifically repeal provisions in the original document. Only one amendment ever has, when prohibition was repealed, but every amendment has changed something in the original.
200614
Read the constitution it's explained
800306
The Preamble \n\nIt is an introduction to the Constitution and gives the basic reason for creating the document.  "... in order to create a more perfect union..."\n\n[][][] r u randy? [][][]\n.
26995
5 main principles are:\nPopular Sovereignty \nLimited Government \nFederalism \nSeparation of Powers \nChecks and Balances\n\nthe 7 ARTICLES are:\nArticle 1- establishes legislative branch\nArticle 2- Establishes and describes executive branch\nArticle 3- Describes and establishes Judicial branch\nArticle 4- States power and limits- describes the relationship between central gov't and state gov't\nArticle 5- describes how to amend the constitution\nArticle 6- Establishes Federal power and makes the constitution the "law of the land"\nArticle 7- Tells how to ratify the constitution
786462
The politicians in America have ignored the basics of the Constitution almost since it's inception. Check out your facts. There was an original clause in the Constitution that stated if this document did not work anymore that it would be time to establish a new one. But, the politicians added an amendment that makes a person a traitor if they try to change the document in question. So, who is more guilty?