Why is it that the Constitution always fails to protect citizens but only hinders progress?
Q. The Constitution didn't prevent the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Palmer raids, McCarthyism, the patriot bill, or the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. But when it comes to real reform, like healthcare or education, the Constitution stands in the way. Why?
Asked by Mooselini - Fri Dec 18 00:38:19 2009 - - 12 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The government is not expected to be perfect... some policies challenge our democratic principles and get approved anyway. The Constitution requires a litmus test that serves as a obstacle for such policies... it is not a perfect document but it is amazingly effective in managing the branches of the government while protecting civil liberties. I have to disagree with you on your thoughts on the Constitution. The Constitution exhibits the frameworks to dismantle those policies that are not in the spirit of that document. Yes, some bills are questionable and are passed into law but the Constitution has the flexibility to allow cooler heads to change such laws at a different time while ensuring that no branch can exceed its power during… [cont.]
Answered by cattledog - Fri Dec 18 00:50:31 2009
Q. The Constitution didn't prevent the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Palmer raids, McCarthyism, the patriot bill, or the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. But when it comes to real reform, like healthcare or education, the Constitution stands in the way. Why?
Asked by Mooselini - Fri Dec 18 00:38:19 2009 - - 12 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The government is not expected to be perfect... some policies challenge our democratic principles and get approved anyway. The Constitution requires a litmus test that serves as a obstacle for such policies... it is not a perfect document but it is amazingly effective in managing the branches of the government while protecting civil liberties. I have to disagree with you on your thoughts on the Constitution. The Constitution exhibits the frameworks to dismantle those policies that are not in the spirit of that document. Yes, some bills are questionable and are passed into law but the Constitution has the flexibility to allow cooler heads to change such laws at a different time while ensuring that no branch can exceed its power during… [cont.]
Answered by cattledog - Fri Dec 18 00:50:31 2009
How come the Constitution of the United States is not being used to its fullest potential?
Q. The Constitution was written for a reason, and today we are not using it to its fullest potential. Why aren't we? The Constitution was written by very smart men and we are not using it like they intended it to be used. If we're not going to use it like we should, why do we have the Constitution?
Asked by soccerchick2011 - Mon Nov 3 13:12:25 2008 - - 16 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Ruby and Furious summed up what I was gonna say so Im gonna focus on something else. Citicop I don't think she is sighting Misuse but rather No use. After the Patriot Act which was not the first time Constitutional liberties have been sacraficed in the name of good. Re wrote the Constitution pretty much to bring broader meaning to the powers of the Exectuive Branch and is very dangerous. From on law enforcement officer to another. I think you will agree that some recent laws in the name of security do nothing other than to give government more power. While we are led to believe they (The People ) are just law breakers who deserve a fine or worse. For example I live in Massachusetts where if one is caught say on the side of the highway… [cont.]
Answered by LOCO - Mon Nov 3 17:47:07 2008
Q. The Constitution was written for a reason, and today we are not using it to its fullest potential. Why aren't we? The Constitution was written by very smart men and we are not using it like they intended it to be used. If we're not going to use it like we should, why do we have the Constitution?
Asked by soccerchick2011 - Mon Nov 3 13:12:25 2008 - - 16 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Ruby and Furious summed up what I was gonna say so Im gonna focus on something else. Citicop I don't think she is sighting Misuse but rather No use. After the Patriot Act which was not the first time Constitutional liberties have been sacraficed in the name of good. Re wrote the Constitution pretty much to bring broader meaning to the powers of the Exectuive Branch and is very dangerous. From on law enforcement officer to another. I think you will agree that some recent laws in the name of security do nothing other than to give government more power. While we are led to believe they (The People ) are just law breakers who deserve a fine or worse. For example I live in Massachusetts where if one is caught say on the side of the highway… [cont.]
Answered by LOCO - Mon Nov 3 17:47:07 2008
Is it absurd to literally apply the Constitution to situations the founding fathers could not have envisioned?
Q. Many people like to say they are for strict interpretation of the Constitution. Fine. However, there are many problems, issues, and situations that aren't directly dealt with by the Constitution and/or were in fact totally inconceivable to the founding fathers. For example, the internet. While it certainly affects interstate commerce and thus the Constitution would say that Congress has the power to regulate it, is that really what the founding fathers intended? How could we possibly know what they would have wanted or if they would have written the Constitution the same way if they had taken that into account? Why should we assume the wisdom of a document at face value in any situation when the realities it is applied to could not… [cont.]
Asked by Big Beautiful Man - Mon Aug 10 22:41:12 2009 - - 21 Answers - 0 Comments
A. "Why should we assume the wisdom of a document at face value in any situation when the realities it is applied to could not have been predicted by its makers? It's not a question of the wisdom of the document. Interpretation is part of law. You can't have a constitution without interpreting it. The idea is common law: Common law refers to law developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive action, and to corresponding legal systems that rely on precedential case law. -Wikipedia The Founders understood it well. It is what gives the judicial branch its power. A constitutional scholar chimes in: "The constitution does not give the government the power to… [cont.]
Answered by David H - Mon Aug 10 22:52:53 2009
Q. Many people like to say they are for strict interpretation of the Constitution. Fine. However, there are many problems, issues, and situations that aren't directly dealt with by the Constitution and/or were in fact totally inconceivable to the founding fathers. For example, the internet. While it certainly affects interstate commerce and thus the Constitution would say that Congress has the power to regulate it, is that really what the founding fathers intended? How could we possibly know what they would have wanted or if they would have written the Constitution the same way if they had taken that into account? Why should we assume the wisdom of a document at face value in any situation when the realities it is applied to could not… [cont.]
Asked by Big Beautiful Man - Mon Aug 10 22:41:12 2009 - - 21 Answers - 0 Comments
A. "Why should we assume the wisdom of a document at face value in any situation when the realities it is applied to could not have been predicted by its makers? It's not a question of the wisdom of the document. Interpretation is part of law. You can't have a constitution without interpreting it. The idea is common law: Common law refers to law developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive action, and to corresponding legal systems that rely on precedential case law. -Wikipedia The Founders understood it well. It is what gives the judicial branch its power. A constitutional scholar chimes in: "The constitution does not give the government the power to… [cont.]
Answered by David H - Mon Aug 10 22:52:53 2009
What articles in the Constitution provided a government structure with checks and balances?
Q. What articles in the Constitution provided a government structure with checks and balances? P.S. Referring to the United State Constitution
Asked by IHaveQuestions - Sat Feb 2 14:56:08 2008 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
A. It isn't literally in the Constitution, the concept of Separation of Powers is embodied in the Constitution in the 1st Article, in the 2nd Article, and in the 3rd Article. Checks and balances refers to the various procedural rules that allow one branch to limit another, such as the authority of the president to veto legislation passed by Congress, or the power of Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Answered by Beau - Sat Feb 2 15:26:30 2008
Q. What articles in the Constitution provided a government structure with checks and balances? P.S. Referring to the United State Constitution
Asked by IHaveQuestions - Sat Feb 2 14:56:08 2008 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
A. It isn't literally in the Constitution, the concept of Separation of Powers is embodied in the Constitution in the 1st Article, in the 2nd Article, and in the 3rd Article. Checks and balances refers to the various procedural rules that allow one branch to limit another, such as the authority of the president to veto legislation passed by Congress, or the power of Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Answered by Beau - Sat Feb 2 15:26:30 2008
What does the constitution say about gay marriage?
Q. If we re supposed to abide by the constitution, then why is there even an argument about gay marriage? Isn t that a debate for the churches? Whatever happened to separate of church and state?
Asked by MyOpinionOnly - Tue May 12 14:41:22 2009 - - 30 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Not a word, which is why it should be a state issue under the Tenth Amendment.
Answered by ND Fan - Tue May 12 14:47:26 2009
Q. If we re supposed to abide by the constitution, then why is there even an argument about gay marriage? Isn t that a debate for the churches? Whatever happened to separate of church and state?
Asked by MyOpinionOnly - Tue May 12 14:41:22 2009 - - 30 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Not a word, which is why it should be a state issue under the Tenth Amendment.
Answered by ND Fan - Tue May 12 14:47:26 2009
How does the idea of a "living" Constitution NOT lean in the direction of a dictatorship?
Q. Going by the historical background of the original Constitution and the backgrounds of each amendment is the only objective standard to interpret the Constitution. With a "living" Constitution there is no rule of law, instead it becomes a "fad". We may as well live in England where there is no Constitution and the law is whatever the government says it is. How about this? What if the President declared a national emergency and at the same time, he declares martial law and has all the Congressional leaders killed and elections banned. How about this? The ruling party who has control of all three branches decides to ban elections due to national emergency. Then what? How does a "living" Constitution not lead to a dictatorship? Bonus… [cont.]
Asked by Mike - Sun Oct 4 00:12:55 2009 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The constitution cannot be amended often enough to be able "strictly construe" it to cover every issue that is raised in the courts. Example: please enlighten us as to the "original intent" of the constitution concerning the internet. Add'l: Ok, which internet issues concern only the powers of the government, and which concern only the rights of the people? What exactly does the constitution say about what the government can and cannot do concerning the internet?
Answered by divot - Sun Oct 4 00:41:01 2009
Q. Going by the historical background of the original Constitution and the backgrounds of each amendment is the only objective standard to interpret the Constitution. With a "living" Constitution there is no rule of law, instead it becomes a "fad". We may as well live in England where there is no Constitution and the law is whatever the government says it is. How about this? What if the President declared a national emergency and at the same time, he declares martial law and has all the Congressional leaders killed and elections banned. How about this? The ruling party who has control of all three branches decides to ban elections due to national emergency. Then what? How does a "living" Constitution not lead to a dictatorship? Bonus… [cont.]
Asked by Mike - Sun Oct 4 00:12:55 2009 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The constitution cannot be amended often enough to be able "strictly construe" it to cover every issue that is raised in the courts. Example: please enlighten us as to the "original intent" of the constitution concerning the internet. Add'l: Ok, which internet issues concern only the powers of the government, and which concern only the rights of the people? What exactly does the constitution say about what the government can and cannot do concerning the internet?
Answered by divot - Sun Oct 4 00:41:01 2009
How does the US Constitution exactly work?
Q. It's a written document, but I don't see how the Government and such as forced to abide by it. Who actually enforces it? What would stop the US Government breaking every single "rule" written on the US Constitution? I know it sounds like a naive question, but I don't live in the United States, so bear with me.
Asked by Jackin' it hard. - Sat Sep 26 12:26:35 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. It lays out the structure of the federal government, clarifies the relationship between that government and the states, explains which powers the government does (and does not!) have, and guarantees certain rights and freedoms to the people. From Shmoop
Answered by augie6_1 - Wed Sep 30 10:15:24 2009
Q. It's a written document, but I don't see how the Government and such as forced to abide by it. Who actually enforces it? What would stop the US Government breaking every single "rule" written on the US Constitution? I know it sounds like a naive question, but I don't live in the United States, so bear with me.
Asked by Jackin' it hard. - Sat Sep 26 12:26:35 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. It lays out the structure of the federal government, clarifies the relationship between that government and the states, explains which powers the government does (and does not!) have, and guarantees certain rights and freedoms to the people. From Shmoop
Answered by augie6_1 - Wed Sep 30 10:15:24 2009
How important is the Constitution of the United States in everyday life?
Q. 1. How important is the Constitution of the United States in everyday life? 2. Is all outside communication made by a company which sells a product or service considered "commercial speech"? 3. Can a company make public comments without intending directly or indirectly to promote its product? Why or why not? 4. What limits, if any, should be in place for such speech?
Asked by Foreveryourgirl - Sat May 30 17:47:50 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. 1. It should be very important, but you'd be amazed at the number of idiots in this country who will surrender their Constitutional rights or the limits placed upon the government in exchange for "free" health care. 2. Not all communication. 3. Yes, they can, as they enjoy the same free speech rights as anyone else. 4. Beyond the crowded theater argument, or slander, free speech should be unlimited.
Answered by TheOnlyBeldin - Sat May 30 18:15:49 2009
Q. 1. How important is the Constitution of the United States in everyday life? 2. Is all outside communication made by a company which sells a product or service considered "commercial speech"? 3. Can a company make public comments without intending directly or indirectly to promote its product? Why or why not? 4. What limits, if any, should be in place for such speech?
Asked by Foreveryourgirl - Sat May 30 17:47:50 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. 1. It should be very important, but you'd be amazed at the number of idiots in this country who will surrender their Constitutional rights or the limits placed upon the government in exchange for "free" health care. 2. Not all communication. 3. Yes, they can, as they enjoy the same free speech rights as anyone else. 4. Beyond the crowded theater argument, or slander, free speech should be unlimited.
Answered by TheOnlyBeldin - Sat May 30 18:15:49 2009
How was the American Constitution a radical departure from the Articles of Confederation?
Q. How did the american constitution change into the Articles of Confederation? Was it more effective that it did change for the good of America?
Asked by Lovely Holic - Mon Oct 13 23:57:39 2008 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The Articles of Confederation was a joint agreement among the states that gave very little power to the Federal level. The Constitution was Ratified not by the states but but groups in the states that were not affiliated with the state government. That is why the federal government has separate powers not granted by states but by the people.
Answered by cgbbears - Wed Oct 15 13:09:47 2008
Q. How did the american constitution change into the Articles of Confederation? Was it more effective that it did change for the good of America?
Asked by Lovely Holic - Mon Oct 13 23:57:39 2008 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The Articles of Confederation was a joint agreement among the states that gave very little power to the Federal level. The Constitution was Ratified not by the states but but groups in the states that were not affiliated with the state government. That is why the federal government has separate powers not granted by states but by the people.
Answered by cgbbears - Wed Oct 15 13:09:47 2008
How far did the constitution solve the problems with the articles of confederation?
Q. By analyzing the main problems of the Articles of Confederation how did the Constitution solve them?
Asked by Kybo - Thu Oct 29 20:21:19 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
Q. By analyzing the main problems of the Articles of Confederation how did the Constitution solve them?
Asked by Kybo - Thu Oct 29 20:21:19 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
How can Obama swear to uphold our Constitution if his intent is to change it?
Q. According to Barack Obama, our forefathers didn't get it right and our Constitution should implement wealth re-distribution through legislation. He has decryed our Constitution as not being written correctly, and has already put us on notice that it is his intent to change it.
Asked by nkorb1 - Mon Nov 3 09:42:29 2008 - - 4 Answers - 1 Comments
A. This is why it's important to remember where the real legal power lies. With Congress, not with the President. Unfortunately, if Congress is heavly populated by those who agree with the President, then you have a problem. And last time I looked, the Congress was heavily Democratic. So if Obama is elected, we definitely have a problem. Like Hitler, Obama is not the hero his disciples have been hypnotised into believing he is. Unfortunately, by the time they wake up to that fact, it'll be too late. For all of us.
Answered by babbie - Mon Nov 3 21:42:41 2008
Q. According to Barack Obama, our forefathers didn't get it right and our Constitution should implement wealth re-distribution through legislation. He has decryed our Constitution as not being written correctly, and has already put us on notice that it is his intent to change it.
Asked by nkorb1 - Mon Nov 3 09:42:29 2008 - - 4 Answers - 1 Comments
A. This is why it's important to remember where the real legal power lies. With Congress, not with the President. Unfortunately, if Congress is heavly populated by those who agree with the President, then you have a problem. And last time I looked, the Congress was heavily Democratic. So if Obama is elected, we definitely have a problem. Like Hitler, Obama is not the hero his disciples have been hypnotised into believing he is. Unfortunately, by the time they wake up to that fact, it'll be too late. For all of us.
Answered by babbie - Mon Nov 3 21:42:41 2008
What Amendment of the Constitution is associated with a murder trial?
Q. My daughter is doing a report on a murder trial and needs to know what Amendment of the US Constitution it is associated with (and possibly how it's associated, but she could do that herself)... Please help!
Asked by rosemary - Wed Oct 22 21:10:45 2008 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The Sixth Amendment. Trial by a jury of one's peers.
Answered by Cranky Yankee - Wed Oct 22 21:14:01 2008
Q. My daughter is doing a report on a murder trial and needs to know what Amendment of the US Constitution it is associated with (and possibly how it's associated, but she could do that herself)... Please help!
Asked by rosemary - Wed Oct 22 21:10:45 2008 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The Sixth Amendment. Trial by a jury of one's peers.
Answered by Cranky Yankee - Wed Oct 22 21:14:01 2008
What clauses in the constitution make the deal to give lousiana vermont and nebraska funding for medacaid?
Q. Recently, a few states were given millions to pay for medacaid. In order, to buy votes. I believe that there is a clause in the constitution that prohibits favorable treatment for one state over the other. Can someone remind me? Or give me a new reason?
Asked by Andy T - Wed Dec 23 11:38:21 2009 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
Q. Recently, a few states were given millions to pay for medacaid. In order, to buy votes. I believe that there is a clause in the constitution that prohibits favorable treatment for one state over the other. Can someone remind me? Or give me a new reason?
Asked by Andy T - Wed Dec 23 11:38:21 2009 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
Was the Constitution a fulfillment of the Revolution or a reaction to its excesses?
Q. Contrast the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution in terms of liberty and power. Was the Constitution a fulfillment of the Revolution or a reaction to its excesses?
Asked by neyo77 - Sat Feb 2 20:02:45 2008 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. What excesses were there in the American revolution? Death, Hunger, or Cold? The constitution was a fulfillment of the the Revolution, in the fact that the whole war was fought simply for the right to make such a document!
Answered by annabellleigh3 - Sat Feb 2 20:08:40 2008
Q. Contrast the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution in terms of liberty and power. Was the Constitution a fulfillment of the Revolution or a reaction to its excesses?
Asked by neyo77 - Sat Feb 2 20:02:45 2008 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. What excesses were there in the American revolution? Death, Hunger, or Cold? The constitution was a fulfillment of the the Revolution, in the fact that the whole war was fought simply for the right to make such a document!
Answered by annabellleigh3 - Sat Feb 2 20:08:40 2008
In comparison to the United States Constitution, how difficult is it to amend State constitutions?
Q. The United States Constitution is much easier to amend. They are both very difficult to amend. Some State constitutions are easier to amend, but most are more difficult State constitutions are relatively easy to amend.
Asked by Bob J - Mon Nov 10 18:43:03 2008 - - 4 Answers - 1 Comments
A. D
Answered by beardog4314 - Mon Nov 10 18:50:34 2008
Q. The United States Constitution is much easier to amend. They are both very difficult to amend. Some State constitutions are easier to amend, but most are more difficult State constitutions are relatively easy to amend.
Asked by Bob J - Mon Nov 10 18:43:03 2008 - - 4 Answers - 1 Comments
A. D
Answered by beardog4314 - Mon Nov 10 18:50:34 2008
Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to prohibit intoxicants?
Q. We know that the Constitution was once amended to prohibit intoxicating liquors. Later that was partially repealed to support state powers within their own state constitutional powers to fully control the use and distribution of intoxicating liquors. However, what amendment or what part of the original US Constitution makes Congress think they have the power to prohibit other intoxicants? Clearly the commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate the commerce regarding intoxicants, but what about the private production and use of such intoxicants?
Asked by Cplot - Mon Oct 26 04:27:41 2009 - - 5 Answers - 1 Comments
A. The Constitution does not give the power to prohibit intoxicants, but neither does it deny that power. People seriously misunderstand the Constitution. Something does not have to be mentioned in the Constitution to be Constitutionally legal.
Answered by Steve W - Mon Oct 26 04:42:36 2009
Q. We know that the Constitution was once amended to prohibit intoxicating liquors. Later that was partially repealed to support state powers within their own state constitutional powers to fully control the use and distribution of intoxicating liquors. However, what amendment or what part of the original US Constitution makes Congress think they have the power to prohibit other intoxicants? Clearly the commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate the commerce regarding intoxicants, but what about the private production and use of such intoxicants?
Asked by Cplot - Mon Oct 26 04:27:41 2009 - - 5 Answers - 1 Comments
A. The Constitution does not give the power to prohibit intoxicants, but neither does it deny that power. People seriously misunderstand the Constitution. Something does not have to be mentioned in the Constitution to be Constitutionally legal.
Answered by Steve W - Mon Oct 26 04:42:36 2009
Should the US tear up its written constitution and start over?
Q. Should the US tear up its written constitution and start from scratch with a new one? The main purpose of the constitution was to protect the people against government and in that it has failed lamentably. Under Bush citizen's rights were torn to shreds and Obama seems to be a chip off the block. Only if you have great wealth and a strong power base can you challenge government. Indeed, does having a written constitution do any good at all. Britain and many countries have unwritten constitutions.
Asked by celtish - Wed May 6 22:48:35 2009 - - 18 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The Constitution isn't working largely because many politicians seemingly think we have already torn it up and thrown it away and the people have done little to stop it. Bush put the Constitution through a paper shredder in regards to personal rights and Obama is doing the same thing in regards to government rights, which will eventually bleed over into personal rights if it hasn't done so already. Obama, for whatever reason, has been praised for it, while Bush was hit hard with complaints over it, and rightly so. I am very glad we have a written constitution though. There's too many things that can go wrong when you don't have your basic governmental ideas written down on paper. The Constitution isn't perfect by any means, but I have… [cont.]
Answered by Colonel Reb - Wed May 6 23:19:56 2009
Q. Should the US tear up its written constitution and start from scratch with a new one? The main purpose of the constitution was to protect the people against government and in that it has failed lamentably. Under Bush citizen's rights were torn to shreds and Obama seems to be a chip off the block. Only if you have great wealth and a strong power base can you challenge government. Indeed, does having a written constitution do any good at all. Britain and many countries have unwritten constitutions.
Asked by celtish - Wed May 6 22:48:35 2009 - - 18 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The Constitution isn't working largely because many politicians seemingly think we have already torn it up and thrown it away and the people have done little to stop it. Bush put the Constitution through a paper shredder in regards to personal rights and Obama is doing the same thing in regards to government rights, which will eventually bleed over into personal rights if it hasn't done so already. Obama, for whatever reason, has been praised for it, while Bush was hit hard with complaints over it, and rightly so. I am very glad we have a written constitution though. There's too many things that can go wrong when you don't have your basic governmental ideas written down on paper. The Constitution isn't perfect by any means, but I have… [cont.]
Answered by Colonel Reb - Wed May 6 23:19:56 2009
What are some advantages of having the same US constitution for over 200 years?
Q. Might sound a little silly, but what are some of the pros and cons to having the same United States constitution that we still have today? And why do you think the constitution has been able to last thing long?
Asked by Chris - Tue Nov 10 17:49:07 2009 - - 7 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Chris, have you noticed that the earth never changes? It continues it's cycles over and over again. The birds never change, the air we breath doesn't change, the fish in the sea doesn't change. Only men change, and some things in men, never change, and thats where the constitution holds its true value when it represents what we are always suppose to have and never taken away.
Answered by Shawn - Tue Nov 10 17:55:14 2009
Q. Might sound a little silly, but what are some of the pros and cons to having the same United States constitution that we still have today? And why do you think the constitution has been able to last thing long?
Asked by Chris - Tue Nov 10 17:49:07 2009 - - 7 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Chris, have you noticed that the earth never changes? It continues it's cycles over and over again. The birds never change, the air we breath doesn't change, the fish in the sea doesn't change. Only men change, and some things in men, never change, and thats where the constitution holds its true value when it represents what we are always suppose to have and never taken away.
Answered by Shawn - Tue Nov 10 17:55:14 2009
Why would Jefferson, who was a strict constructionist regarding the constitution?
Q. Why would Jefferson, who was a strict constructionist regarding the constitution, support the purchase of Louisiana when the buying of such lands by the United States is not mentioned in the Constitution?
Asked by determined000 - Wed Jan 30 17:47:36 2008 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. He didn't. He favored an amendment added to the Constitution which would give the government the power to purchase land. Madison and others close to the President convinced him that if he did not take Napoleon's offer, the area might be sold to another nation or Napoleon might withdraw the offer. Some Federalists called Jefferson a hypocrite for abandoning his strict construction theory of the Constitution. Jefferson was a practical politician are recognized a good deal when he saw one.
Answered by MrV - Wed Jan 30 17:57:19 2008
Q. Why would Jefferson, who was a strict constructionist regarding the constitution, support the purchase of Louisiana when the buying of such lands by the United States is not mentioned in the Constitution?
Asked by determined000 - Wed Jan 30 17:47:36 2008 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. He didn't. He favored an amendment added to the Constitution which would give the government the power to purchase land. Madison and others close to the President convinced him that if he did not take Napoleon's offer, the area might be sold to another nation or Napoleon might withdraw the offer. Some Federalists called Jefferson a hypocrite for abandoning his strict construction theory of the Constitution. Jefferson was a practical politician are recognized a good deal when he saw one.
Answered by MrV - Wed Jan 30 17:57:19 2008
What is the process that helped to create the present Constitution?
Q. describe the process that helped to create the present Constitution? Did the Framers of the document believe that their ideas would work? why or why not? Did the Ideas of the framers work? Why has the Constitution lasted for over 200 years with so few changes? please help i have to write a 2 page essay on it. And also can you include links that is related to the question. I've been trying to found it all week, but no luck.
Asked by DO NOT GENERALIZE ME! I'M HU - Sat Nov 14 13:50:58 2009 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Try the website link below, it is a valuable resource that has an in depth collection regarding the formation of America, the founding documents and founding fathers. Welcome to the WallBuilders Resources page. Our comprehensive collection of issues, articles, newsletters, writings, and other documents is available in both searchable and browseable formats. Our collection of issues and articles includes discussions on the Founding Fathers and religion, slavery, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, evolution, Benjamin Franklin, and many other historical topics.
Answered by Wrenched - Sat Nov 14 14:08:34 2009
Q. describe the process that helped to create the present Constitution? Did the Framers of the document believe that their ideas would work? why or why not? Did the Ideas of the framers work? Why has the Constitution lasted for over 200 years with so few changes? please help i have to write a 2 page essay on it. And also can you include links that is related to the question. I've been trying to found it all week, but no luck.
Asked by DO NOT GENERALIZE ME! I'M HU - Sat Nov 14 13:50:58 2009 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Try the website link below, it is a valuable resource that has an in depth collection regarding the formation of America, the founding documents and founding fathers. Welcome to the WallBuilders Resources page. Our comprehensive collection of issues, articles, newsletters, writings, and other documents is available in both searchable and browseable formats. Our collection of issues and articles includes discussions on the Founding Fathers and religion, slavery, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, evolution, Benjamin Franklin, and many other historical topics.
Answered by Wrenched - Sat Nov 14 14:08:34 2009
From Yahoo Answer Search: 'constitution'
Thu Dec 24 13:23:42 2009 [ refresh local cache ]
[Hide]▼
news.google.com
B92
... of Vojvodina Hungarians (SVM) did not support the ruling coalition during the budget vote yesterday "because they were defending the Constitution ". ...
and more »
radio-canada.ca
239px x 350px | 23.40kB
[source page]
officielle La Constitution canadienne comprendra en plus de l Acte de 1867 une Charte des droits et libertes et une formule d amendement Cette derniere prevoit que pour la majorite des modifications constitutionnelles il faudra recueillir l approbation des deux tiers des provinces
newwest.net
Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:17:04 GM
I think the genius of the U.S. . Constitution. is that it values the collective compromise of the whole over the beliefs of any individual. But our corrupt system gives corporations and other special interests undue influence that ...
[Hide]▲
