i]i00[u[u9=
yes
Five
This would depend entirely on which state is involved. For some states, the legislature and governor can amend the constitution, or the people can amend it with an initiative. Each state has its own process.
In three ways. One, it specifically lists the rights, responsibilities, obligations and limitations of each of the three branches of government in Articles I, II and III.Two, it specifies in U.S. Const., Amend. IX:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."Three, it specifies in U.S. Const., Amend. X:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
No. The president has no direct part in amending the Constitution. He can lobby for Constitutional changes and if given the opportunity, can nominate Supreme Court justices who may interpret the Constitution in ways that amount that amount to changes.
During America's Founding Period, the Articles of Confederation of 1781 served as one of the primary bases for the writing and ratification of the Constitution from 1787 to 1789. In numerous particular ways (for example, the membership and powers of Congress), the Articles provided key touch-points by which the Constitution would be drafted.
The first way to amend the U.S. Constitution begins in Congress, where a proposed amendment must be approved by a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Once Congress passes the amendment, it is sent to the states for ratification, where three-fourths of the state legislatures or conventions must approve it for the amendment to become part of the Constitution.
The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are similar in that they both establish a framework for government in the United States. However, the Constitution provides for a stronger central government with more specific powers and a system of checks and balances, while the Articles of Confederation created a weaker central government with more power given to the individual states.
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention were not authorized to write a new Constitution. They were only supposed to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. In that sense they had no authority at all to write a whole new constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation.
Yes, because the United States under the Articles of Confederation operated as a loose group of individual states, which retained most of their sovereign status. States would be able to interfere with one another with no power over them to make them act as equals. In addition, the federal government had little authority to act as a government with foreign nations. The Articles simply did not establish a unified government. IF the switch had not been made to a government with a stronger federal system, the likelihood is that the individual states would have gone their own ways as they eventually tried to do before the Civil War.
A lot of ways. Perhaps the most important differences are that the Constitution had three branches, instead of just one, which balanced power better than in the Articles of Confederation, and it gave more power to the federal government.
During America's Founding Period, the Articles of Confederation of 1781 served as one of the primary bases for the writing and ratification of the Constitution from 1787 to 1789. In numerous particular ways (for example, the membership and powers of Congress), the Articles provided key touch-points by which the Constitution would be drafted.