and amend parts of the Constitution? Do y'all agree with there philosophy?
2007-03-10 11:09:09 · 9 answers · asked by dude guy 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
the founding fathers came from a country with a corrupt government and they didn't want that to happen here... that was the main thing they were trying to do with the constitution... decentralize power so that no one person would have too much, even if they were corrupt... which it is inevitable that some will be at some point...
and they made it hard to change, because they knew that corrupt people would make it into government, but the harder it was to change the constitution, the less power the corrupt people would have... because if they could change it easily, they would... and then they would have all the power...
2007-03-10 11:25:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It isn't difficult to change if your cause is acceptec by most people.
It is simply meant to reflect the desires of the various States. That is, at least 3/4s of the States must agree to the amendment.
If it wasn't this way a few States could force the others to do things not agreeable.
Even so, the question is less about changing the Constitution than it is the federal government enacting laws which are extra-Constitutional without initiating the Amendment process.
The slow process of law change (inclusive of Constitutional Amendment) reflects the evolution of the people and how they view their government in the context of Common Law.
2007-03-10 11:28:14 · answer #2 · answered by Randy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Framers didn't want the Constitution to be changed for trivial or whimsical reasons, or to deal with such specific issues as whether alcohol is legal. We all saw how well that worked out.
The idea was that the Constitution set outer bounderies and broad framework limits on government action, and Congress would fill in the appropriate details with legislation. That's why there are so many provisions that refer to "in such manner as Congress may established".
2007-03-10 11:32:17 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I consider the universal tenor of the replies. that's a residing rfile because of the fact that's replaced via a complicated yet a threat technique. It became nicely theory out via our forefathers, yet extremely is in basic terms too common to alter in a groundswell of emotion not in line with data, or in line with distorted "data" nicely dealt with in the media. And that's being systematically destroyed via small communities with agendas and robust legal experts and undesirable congressmen. a lot of whom play on the older precise English with which that's written, to deceive human beings it says something it would not! It became made complicated so it would not get replaced different than via an exceptionally super reason. and shouldn't get replaced, because of the fact it covers the bases thoroughly now, except there's a brilliant replace in mankind.
2016-10-01 22:03:00 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was to make certain the Constitution wouldn't be changed on a whim. And it seems to work, Prohibition was the only real "whim" that got snuck in there.
2007-03-10 11:18:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They did it so that it wasn't changed on a whim. The Constitution isn't supposed to be changed with every trend.
2007-03-10 11:14:20 · answer #6 · answered by vospire s 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To discourage whimsical changes related to temporary shifts in social attitudes. Yes, they got it right. It frustrates both the democrats and the republicans from time to time, which means it's about right!
2007-03-10 13:46:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
100% They got it right and we are all the better for it.
2007-03-10 11:25:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the FOUNDING FATHERS got it right!!
2007-03-10 11:12:14 · answer #9 · answered by patriot07 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋