Three-Fifths Agreement and other promblems writing the constitution?
926174
That was not really a problem with the writing of it. It was ONE of the problems faced regarding how the states would be represented in Congress. The other problem regarding representation was the Great Compromise. That compromise created a bicameral legislature.
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.
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
34000
The most part of the U.S. Constitution was written by James Madison, and there is also some part is written by Hamilton, Washington, and other federalists.
200614
Read the constitution it's explained
106227
Gee, if there were only some kind of, oh I don't know, CONSTITUTION... or BILL OF RIGHTS.\nSeems like that would help.
167434
Questions like or similar to this one have appeared here several times.  Other than those who ask such questions to simply get a response to see what others think, often they come up (in my opinion) because the asker (present company excepted, of course) due to a lack of education as to what the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights actually are and mean.\n\nFirst of all, the Constitution of the United States was created to create a general government (in this case a federal government) and the relationship between that general government and the ratifying States and their citizens, as ratified by the several States as representing the citizens of each of their States.   \n\nIt is not a document of laws nor does it grant any rights.  It is a structure which acts as a foundation from which laws are to be enacted which are necessary (and proper) to carry through the powers delegated to the federal government created by those delegated powers.\n\nThe Bill of Rights is the result of an agreement made during the Constitutional Convention to gather the votes necessary to propose the draft of the Constitution to the then standing Congress under the Articles of Confederation.  It first came up (by George Mason) during the discussion concerning trial by jury.  \n\nAt that time 8 of the 13 State Constitutions (the States had real Constitutions prior to the Constitution of the United States) had forms of a Bill of Rights and George Mason had written Virginia’s in 1776.\n\nSubsequent to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States and during the first session of the Congress, James Madison was given the task of drafting this Bill of Rights and in this effort he used the Virginia Bill of Rights as a guide.  His work resulted in a Bill of Rights with 12 articles being proposed to the several State legislatures.  Only 10 were ratified at that time.\n\nBills of Rights are not new to our historical roots, certainly Magna Carta can be considered a form of a Bill of Rights and there were others through the years such as “The Petition of Right [1628] and “The Bill of rights” [1689].\n\nEven so, the United States Bill of Rights is less a listing of individual rights than it is selected controls on the federal government.  This is because of the structure of the Bill of rights, that is, the first 8 ratified articles of the Bill of Rights are exclusionary articles in that they exclude the federal government from doing specific acts.  The final two articles are declarations of basic truths and are therefore controlling of the federal government.\n\nAll of this structure of government can reasonably be considered as being a natural evolution of our heritage of the Common Law easily traceable to the Great Charter of 1215 (Magna Carta) and, in my opinion, founded in the developing Common Law during the preceding 2,000 years.\n\nDuring the intervening years since 1791 (year of the ratification of the Bill of Rights) 27 Amendments have been made to the Constitution of the United States changing that structure.\n\nLegislative statutes are enacted within this structure and the constitutional structures of the various States.  Those enacted laws, in the style of our common law, evolve and produce new laws, as well as new judicial interpretations.  In that sense we do, and yet we don’t, live within what occurred 215 years ago.  \n\nIn such a system, how can it be out of date?  It has lasted so long with relatively little change because its roots and its intent and its content are focused on individual rights.
959090
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention in which only three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegate James Wilson.\n\nNorthern delegates generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves at their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, Southern slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and Electoral College (taxation was only a secondary issue). The final compromise of counting slaves as only three fifths of their actual numbers is generally credited with giving the South disproportionate political power in the U.S. government from the establishment of the Constitution until the Civil War.\n\nThe three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:\n\n"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, 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." \n\n[edit] Origins\nThe three-fifths ratio was not a new concept. It originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The North had proposed counting all the slaves; the South insisted that slaves were not as productive, and suggested counting half the slaves. After proposed compromises of 2/3 and 3/4 failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the three-fifths ratio proposed by James Madison. Though this amendment failed by falling two states short of the unanimous approval required for amending the Articles (only New Hampshire and New York opposing it), the ratio was a ready solution to the impasse in the Constitutional Convention. Notice, however, that the situation was quite different in the Constitutional Convention. In amending the Articles of Confederation, the North wanted slaves to count for more than the South did because this was to determine taxes paid by the states to the federal government. In the Constitutional Convention, the more important issue was representation, so the South wanted slaves to count for more than the North did.
760799
Are you talking about the English Magna Carta or the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the USA.???\nIt is confusing.
553496
None! The Constitution has no provisions on the matter. As to previous poster your refering to the rule for Senators & President. Not the Justices....
22977
The constitution specifically says, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."\n\nThey clearly anticipated these amendments modifying the original document. In fact, many of the amendments have revised the original. Changing the election of Senators and Representatives to popular election, changing the way the number of representatives was calculated, changing the day Congress convenes, and allowing income tax are just a few of the major revisions to the original that have come about by the amendments.
866353
It's covered in article five of the Constitution.  An amendment can be approved by a 2/3 majority of both the house and senate.  The second way is that the 2/3 of the states can call a constitutional conventions, and the proposed amendment much be approved by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states.\n\nBy the way, I was glad to have a chance to look up an answer from the Constitution.  It was good practice.
614574
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Constitution
836159
That was the norm back then. They had to compromise on the slave situation or the Constitution would never have been ratified by all the states.  But the people who wrote the constitution provided a legal framework and a form of government that allowed for progress and the eventual provision of rights to blacks and women. That is what makes us a great nation now.
27466
sure.  \n\n1.  it's law and it's written into the US constitution.  most constitutional amendments have been small alterations or additions to the document.  anything that fundamentally changes the structure of the US government sets a dangerous precedent - i.e. that those in power in washington can muck around with the system.  what's next - congress appoints judges instead of the president?  it is a slippery-slope argument, to be sure, but the "if it ain't broke" cliche is a cliche for a reason.\n\n2.  the electoral college was designed so that a president couldn't be elected by appealing to a particular region that was denser or more highly-populated than the others.  this was a big worry to the founders, who feared that a particular state or region might become so populous that it could single-handedly determine who became president.  the electoral college solves this by ensuring a president is elected with a broad geographical consensus.  small states are given extra weight in order to tip the scales back in their favor.\n\n3.  the electoral college maintains the two-party system.  it is very difficult for parties other than the two main left-right parties to break into national politics because of the winner-takes-all nature of the electoral college.  this can be seen as a negative - good ideas and minority interests are left behind - but also as a positive.  a two-party system is dynamic, and the issues over which they disagree move back and forth with the political will of the people.  politicans have to be re-elected, so a politician trying to win votes has to do it by moving to whatever position his constituents demand.\n\nlots of people will say this is a bad system, but it is efficient.  the US government gets things done, despite all the yammering and garbage that comes emanating from washington.  compare it, for instance, to the italian parliament, which with 16 parties is a very open system, but there is such frequent disagreement and bickering that nothing -ever- gets done.  a two-party system makes it very easy for there to be a majority consensus, and some would say this is the strength of american democracy.  i leave it to you to decide.\n\nthere are a lot more pros to be considered - i would like to point you to a document written by the deputy director of the federal election commission.  it is an excellent read and there is a section on pros and cons towards the end of the document.  i include the link below.
866146
Here are some facts: \n\nThe Constitution is the document that creates the federal government.  \n\nThe people that wrote it did so in their capacity as representatives of the states, not as representatives of the people. \n\nThe Constitution as written places no obligations or limits on individuals other than minimum age to serve in elected federal offices. \n\nThe two houses of the Congress were created to give the people control of one, the House of Representatives, and the other was for the states, the Senators. \n\nInference: \n\nThe 17th Amendment took away the representation of the states in the federal government they created. \n\nObservation: \n\nThis is why the federal government has gotten totally out of control. \n\nConclusion:\n\nIt needs to be repealed.
984235
You better believe it.  The framers were very wise to include these contingencies in the Constitution.\n\nYou get your chance on Tuesday :-)