Grievences "taken care of" in Constitution?

Question

What are some examples of grievences that were eliminated in the Constitution. In other words, what were some grievences that the colonists had that were solved in the document.

Example: 3rd amendment does not require quartering of troops in homes unless there is consent from the owner of the house. In the grievences towards the British, the colonists hated quartering soldiers...

thanks.

Answer 1

Interesting thing is that NONE of the sort of 'grievances' you are thinking of were included in the original Constitution. Rather, they were added later as amendments, esp. among the first ten (what we call the "Bill of Rights"), which all passed at once.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Now MOST of what you find in these ten is in response either to some sort of abuse the colonists suffered OR to important traditional English rights** they FEARED losing. (Actually the 9th & 10th amendments had mostly to do with rights the individual STATES kept so it's #1-8 you want to look at.)

Here are some the colonists had specifically complained about:

- right to peaceably assemble...petition govt about their grievances without fear of arrest... (answer in Amendment I)
- freedom of press & speech.. again, in context esp concerned about no arrest, etc. for POLITICAL speech (answer in Amend. I)
- unlimited search and seizure (answer= Amendment IV)
- no guarantee of trial by jury (big one!) (answer = Amend,VI)

compare: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/tp/independence.htm

Note that several items in the Bill of Rights concerned fair LEGAL process (from not being arrested for free expression, including political speech to not being forced to testify vs. oneself [or have evidence unfairly seize], to knowing charges against you & getting a fair, public trial, to reasonable punishment.

Many of these were 'general' historic English rights (see them, for example in the "English Bill of Rights" 1689), though many were particularly concerned with being safe from reprisal for unpopular political speech and attempts to appeal for change or redress, as well as the ability to PROTECT one's safety and rights (where the right to bear arms [Amendment II] comes in).

Note that the one you listed, about quartering troops, is connected to the colonists' objection to Britain's having maintained a "standing army" amongst them during PEACE time (which is arguably the move that turned Boston into a tinderbox and made the outbreak of war nearly inevitable)

____________________

The "compromises" included in the Constitution itself (such as the 3/5 compromise mentioned in another answer) were NOT responses to anti-British "grievances".

Also note that the "GREAT Compromise" --though again, not a "grievance" issue -- was NOT that there would be a bicameral legislature, but that one house would be apportioned by population (larger states receiving more), the other by states (equal number for each state).

Answer 2

There's now a bicamercal legislature, and this doesn't negatively effect the small states because there's a balance between the branches. "checks and balances"
2- 3/5 of the black population will be recognised in the constituion
3- again, no single state can have more power than the congress

there definitely more...