they were men
The framers put clauses in the Constitution to allow for amendments to be made if specific issues should arise once the federal system was implemented. They also allowed for parts of the Constitution to be interpreted in different ways.
The framers of the constitution had read many works of philosophers whose ideas they borrowed in drafting what is today the constitution of the Unite States of America. Some of these Philosophers included Rousseau, Locke and Montesquieu, and they held that a legitimate government had to look into the best interests of the people.
The Framers didn't want the Constitution being changed on a regular basis for any other reason aside from one of the utmost importance. As a result, while there is an involved process, with mandatory approval required from the different houses of Congress, amending the Constitution is possible if needed.
Some colonies didn't chose to have a representative government, others did.
Ask your teacher
idk
It is reflected in the three branches of government as well as the attempt to balance the power between them so that one checks the other before something can be done by either.
because they were declared war!
writing your representative
There various ways that the US Constitution and state constitutions are similar. The two main ways are the fact that they both define governments and allow for amendments.
Please include federalism and free elections in your answer.
The first is Literalism, which insists upon a strict interpretation of the actual words used in the Constitution. The second is the Intent of the Framers, another technique that seeks to explain what the Framers at the time were trying to achieve in writing the constitution. The third is the Balancing of Interests, which is a technique that helps balance the Individualism and the Communitarian specter of the Constitution. The fourth and last one is the Stare Decesis, Latin for previous decision stands, is another technique of interpretation that remains useful in that the judge looks for precedents which resemble current controversy, finds the rule of law that was used in those cases, and applies it to the present case. In short, it is referring to the previous cases that were solved, this helps insure an incremental change in law rather than radical.