That the new Nationand the citizens in it were free and independent.
yes
I think it may be the great compromise.
So no one branch of government would be too powerful.
to limit power of the southern states to extend civil rights to freedmen to provide freedmen with political power
Some people think that some parts of the constitution are difficult to understand because they are written in old English. Written language has evolved since the constitution was written so some of the words are not those we use today.
There was the articles of confederation that didn't work and this congress meet in 1787 to write the constitution. So, to answer your question I think you are confused. The constitution was a whole new effort and the articles were too loose and didn't really have the framework for a working government.
So that random and potentially faulty amendments could not be just stuck there..
The writers of the Constitution added a system of checks and balances so that no part of the government would have too much power. And so that the common people did not exert to much power on the federal government (I know, seems anti-democratic, but hey, they were elitists back then)
Bill Amend i think hes great
so if two of the other government branches thought the other was too powerful they could check the issue then balance the branches
Because to amend the Constitution you have to propose an amendment in Congress, then it has to be formally passed by Congress. After being passed by Congress, the amendment is sent to the states to be ratified, but it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states within a 10 year limit, otherwise the amendment is not added to the list of amendments
Knowing their audiences helps writers know which appeals will be most effective.
Daniel Webster believed that the American people, acting through their elected representatives in Congress, had the power to amend and change the Constitution. He argued that constitutional amendments should be pursued to address issues and adapt to changing circumstances, rather than engaging in loose interpretations of the Constitution by the judiciary.