You would favour them if you thought they were useful and oppose them if you thought they would be detrimental
I would favor constitutional amendments if they enhance individual rights, promote equality, or address pressing issues in society. On the other hand, I would oppose amendments that infringe on basic rights, discriminate against certain groups, or undermine the core principles of democracy.
Yes, abolitionists were in favor of outlawing slavery. They believed that slavery was immoral and inhumane, and worked towards passing laws and amendments that would end the practice of owning humans as property.
An agency or department not specifically provided for by the Constitution, but one that nevertheless exists and has been held to be Constitutional. The USDA or CIA are two examples. Pretty much all the other alphabet soup agencies - besides defense - are examples as well.
In the 1800s, laws in many Western countries were more likely to favor members of the Christian religion, particularly Protestant denominations. Discrimination against religious minorities, such as Catholics and Jews, was common during this time period.
A runaway slave would need protection, a safe hiding place, and access to food and water to survive and evade capture. They would also benefit from support and guidance from individuals or organizations that oppose slavery and are willing to help them escape to freedom.
The issue of the Three-Fifths Compromise was resolved at the Constitutional Convention, which determined how slaves would be counted for the purpose of taxation and representation in Congress. The compromise stated that each slave would be counted as three-fifths of a person for these purposes.
No It depends on your particular moral and ethical values.
No. I would not oppose an amendment to the United States Constitution guaranteeing Americans the right to marry someone of their own sex. I would, however, oppose an amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.
The opposite of oppose would be to support, to cooperate, or to agree.
republic
I would oppose such an amendment as a violation of states' rights as well as the civil rights of Americans.
Many of the members of the Constitutional Convention were concerned that a strong central government would overpower the states, and would have too much power over the people. That, by the way. was the origin of the Bill of Rights. Read carefully- those 10 Amendments pretty much spell out what the US Government is NOT allowed to do.
it was ratified in 1992, the last state to ratify would be Ohio, Ohio would wait 85 years to ratify it.
James Madison proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution, 10 of which were approved. The ones that weren't would have established Congressional representation and prohibited Congress from raising its own salaries.
I believe that would include the amendments and whatever is written in the Constitution. Like how we have the freedom of speech because it's in the Constitution.
The original draft of the Bill of Rights had 17 Amendments, 10 of which would eventually be ratified. The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791.
A method formed to help ratify (approve) constitutional amendments.
The two men who proposed amendments to the constitution that would outlaw abolition were representative Thomas Corwin and Senator John Crittenden. Thomas Corwin was from Ohio and John Crittenden was from Kentucky.