Much like many documents that serve as a guide, it's viewed to match the values and opinions of those who read it. The two main schools are literally and loosely, or reading the Constitution verbatim vs. adapting key phrases to suit one's argument.
The Constitution can be viewed at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, PA.
Washington DC
whashigton DC
As little homosexuals haha
Because the states sent representatives to vote on the Constitution, and therefor did not need to be viewed by the individual states.
The National Archives in Washington DC, right next to the Declaration of Independence
One argument anti-federalists made for rejecting the Constitution was that they viewed the Constitution as giving the national government too much power (which they had just fought a revolution over trying to free themselves from the grasp of a foreign government that had an extremely centralized government) and not enough power to the states. Another argument against the ratification of the Constitution was the use of a president to head the national government. They viewed this as a position where someone could have a lot of power, such as the King or Queen had in England.
A few years ago, I saw it in the capitol building, in Washington, D.C. Should still be there. Possible that I might have confused the constitution with the Declaration of Independence. Not being a U.S. citizen, some things kind of get confused.
If you would like to read the US Constitution you can read this many different places. There are many museums around the US that have the US Constitution in them, and if that fails there is always online.
The framers of the Constitution viewed Congress as the center of policy-making in the federal government. They believed that a legislative body, representative of the people, should hold significant power in shaping laws and policies. This emphasis on a bicameral legislature reflected their commitment to democratic principles and checks and balances, ensuring that no single branch of government could dominate the policy-making process.
Informal methods do not really change the Constitution per se, they just change the way it is viewed. An informal method refers to a change in makeup in the Supreme Court, which can alter how laws are interpreted. The only real way to change the Constitution is formally.
The term "carpetbagger's constitution" refers to the 1868 Constitution of South Carolina. This constitution was criticized by opponents, particularly those aligned with the pre-Civil War social order, as it was seen as being influenced by Northern politicians (carpetbaggers) who moved to the South during Reconstruction to take advantage of the political and economic upheaval. Supporters of the constitution argued it aimed to modernize the state and promote civil rights, while detractors viewed it as a product of outside interference.