Abstract The following paper briefly adumbrates ten constitutionalamendments this writer believes can safeguard individual rights in America. The paper looks at the constitutions of other lands to arrive at a better idea of what revisions will serve America best. The paper concludes that American problems need uniquely American solutions.
From the Paper "Proposing amendments to the United States Bill of Rights is a favorite activity of many Americans. With that in mind, the following paper will offer up ten amendments, in order of significance, aimed at bolstering individual rights. To perform this rather ardurous task, it is necessary - among other things - to speak with various individuals who are of voting age and of sound mind to gain their input into what amendments will most advance the cause of liberty and the pursuit of individual happiness. The paper will also review the constitutions of at least a handful of other nations with an eye towards determining which aspects of them, if any, may be worthy of incorporation into the revised Bill of Rights. Finally, this paper will conclude with a table that delineates each of the ten amendments and offers a brief explanation of the meaning and intent of each amendment."
Discusses the motives behind adopting a constitutionalamendment that requires a balanced budget and some of the problems associated with the amendment.
Abstract This paper looks at the reasons behind Congress's proposal for a Constitutionalamendment that would require a balanced budget and the groups that supported the proposal. The paper also looks at the groups that opposed the proposal and their arguments against it. The paper concludes with a counter proposal that is intended to address the concerns of those both for and against the proposed amendment.
From the Paper "Deficit spending in the eighties, coupled with two Gulf Wars and a slowing economy, have escalated the borrowing and spending of this country for nearly two decades straight. As the federal deficit grows, those within government can not help but heed the warning signs. With no end in sight, many inside the beltway have proposed initiatives for capping federal spending. The most notable of these, and perhaps most drastic, is the adoption of a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Proponents believe a balanced budget is necessary for the continued prosperity of the nation. They also believe budget oversights can be avoided when the President and lawmakers are held accountable for where they direct money."
Abstract This paper reviews five sites. It gives the appearance, content, how to navigate the site. For example, at one site the paper presents information about the 19th Amendment including states that ratified and the date. Another site gives information about ratification. Another site is selected because it contains many links to other sites related to ConstitutionalAmendments.
From the Paper "This site is pleasing to the eye and yet remains functional for research purposes. It contains historical information, by way of a dropdown menu through which one can obtain profile, membership, and leadership information about a particular Congress. Legislative and historical information from the 91st (1969?1971) through the 107th (2001?2003) Congresses is provided. For example, the 106th Congress, which was 2000-2001) reports a total membership of 435 Members, four Delegates, and one Resident Commissioner."
Presents a complete research paper to investigate neo-convergence in the Indian Constitution in the areas of constitutionalamendments and human rights.
Abstract This paper hypothesizes that the current attempts of making structural changes in legal systems, especially constitutions, are a result of economic globalization and is different from the earlier existing forms of influences on constitution-making. The writer explains that the selected methodologies of case study and qualitative analysis present two dimensions viz. experience of nations in responding to convergence attempts and executive and judicial responses to human rights. To make Indian society functional in the future, the paper concludes, it is imperative that its present constitution be revised or altogether rewritten.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Unconstitutional ConstitutionalAmendments: Definition and Theory
Unconstitutional ConstitutionalAmendments: A Definition
Unconstitutional ConstitutionalAmendments and Liberal Democracy
India's Basic Structure.
Problem Statement and Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Objectives and Methodology
Objectives
Methodology
Convergence and Neo-Convergence Explained
The Concept, Politics and Future of ConstitutionalAmendment in India
Why Focus on the ConstitutionalAmendment Amendment Politics, Constitutional Change and the Social Revolution
Reforming the Constitution: Towards Liberalization or Human Rights?
Recent Developments in the ConstitutionalAmendment and Indian Judiciary
Conclusion
From the Paper "The political economy of "socialism" has triggered important constitutional amendments to achieve the desired goals of the social revolution: The 1st Amendment created the 9th schedule, the 7th Amendment introduced new land laws, expropriations following the 17th Amendment were struck down by the Golak Nath decision, correspondingly the 24th, 25th and 27th amendment diluted Golak Nath while the 42nd amendment overrode Kesavananda. Liberalization policies, so far, have neither translated into mass politics nor into a constitutional reform debate."
Abstract This paper addresses three potential new amendments to the constitution. The first of the amendments discussed addresses school prayer. The second and third amendments discussed address term limits for both members of Congress and for the United States president. The final amendment proposed seeks to overturn Amendment 22 that limits a president to two terms of four years in office. It also proposes that a president be elected of one term of 9 years, with a provision that congress may remove the president and call for a new election after the president has served at least three years in office.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Amendment Number 28 Congressional Term Limits
Discussion
Amendment -33
Conclusion
From the Paper "This amendment attempts to satisfy two very different groups of people who have conflicting ideas about school prayer. On one hand, it allows individuals and groups to conduct public prayer in a public school setting. On the other hand, it still protects the separation of church and State that is part of the first Constitutional Amendment in the Bill of Rights. (Bill of Rights) It appears that the majority of people want prayer returned to public school. A survey by the Pittsburgh Courier received a significantly large positive response to the question "Should prayer be returned to public schools.""
Abstract This paper discusses how in 1947 Justice Frankfurter remarked that individuals were entitled to fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution. However Frankfurter concluded that he could not determine exactly what rights would be considered fundamental because there was no direction provided by the framers. The paper further discusses how 1965, Justice Stewart searched through the constitution for any indication that a right to privacy was evident. He found none. Stewart had intended to apply this right to a case that dealt with contraceptive laws that had been passed in Connecticut. However, failing in this mission, Stewart stated that the Bill of Rights offered guarantees to citizens and that within those guarantees there had to be a "zone of privacy" that was intended by the founders. Therefore, it would appear time to create an amendment allowing for the right to privacy for American citizens.
Abstract This paper examines the creation of the Constitution of the United States, its purpose and its amendments. The paper then focuses on the Bill of Rights, which are the first ten amendments to the Constitution. In particular, the paper discusses how the first ten amendments of the Constitution have been a vital part of the political and legal developments of the United States.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
ConstitutionalAmendments Security Or Freedom
Conclusion
From the Paper "The creation of the American republic started with a well written and popularly accepted Constitution, which shows a clear primacy for the individual over the government and is the greatest political achievement in the history of the Western world. The government's loyalty to the Constitution, which limits its power and guarantees human liberty, is nowhere else more sorely tested than in the time of war (Brown, 1994). But has the government really been faithful to its obligations to guarantee rights and liberties since September 11th 2001? Evidence shows that it has not. It has tortured people that have been arrested. It has claimed the power to lock up Americans for life and not even bring charges against them. It has prosecuted foreigners in secret, arrested lawyers who presume to defend them, and for the first time in American history, without obtaining a court order, it reads Americans' mail and uses what it finds against them. This is not the American government the Founding Fathers created (Napolitano, 2004)."
Abstract This paper argues that the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Marriage Amendment, represents a repudiation of the rights and freedoms already granted to all citizens in the Constitution because its intended purpose is to deny gays and lesbians the right to a legal marriage. The paper contends that a better amendment regarding the institution of marriage would be the Amendment for Total Equality because it would guarantee to all citizens the legal rights and benefits of marriage and seeks to prevent and, ultimately, eliminate legal discrimination against homosexuals.
From the Paper "The definition of civil marriage is currently defined by state law. According to the Federalist principles underlying the creation of the union, individual states have the right to define the legal parameters of marriage: "the state is free to set limits to the circumstances in which marriage may be permitted, and judicial interpretation thereof," ("Federal Marriage Amendment" 2004). The federal government cannot offer a blanket definition of marriage. However, a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States: H.J. Res 56, would place universal parameters on the definition of the social institution. Also called the Federal Marriage Amendment, the proposal reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups," ("Federal Marriage Amendment" Section One, cited by Longley 2004). Support for H.J. Res 56 is relatively strong. Its proponents seek primarily to prevent gays and lesbians from being able to legally marry."
Abstract This paper defines the doctrine of eclipse and its relationship to the Indian Constitution. The author points out that, by virtue of this doctrine, the legislature can simply revive an inconsistent pre-constitutional law by amending the Constitution. This results in legislative inertia. Thus, the paper concludes the doctrine largely benefits the executive and not the people.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Nature and Scope
Research Questions
Doctrine of Eclipse
Applicability of Doctrine of Eclipse with regard to Post-Constitutional Laws
Article 13(1) is Not Retrospective
Distinction between Unconstitutionality from Lack of Legislative Competence and from Violation of Constitutional Limitations on Legislative Power
Distinctions between Article 13 (1) and 13 (2)
Supreme Court Decisions which point out the Distinctions between Articles 13 (1) and 13 (2) of the Constitution Distinction between Voidness in the case of Pre-Constitutional Law and Post-Constitutional Law
Amendment can Revive a Pre-Constitutional Law but not a Post-Constitutional Law Declared Invalid
A Critical Analysis of Doctrine of Eclipse
Conclusion
From the Paper "The amendment to the Constitution can revive pre-Constitutional laws if it removes the inconsistency associated with that law. This is by virtue of the application of doctrine of eclipse on pre-Constitutional laws which were not still born and would exist though eclipsed on account of the inconsistency to govern pre-existing matters. In the case of post-Constitution laws, they would be still born to the extent of the contravention. This would mean that the doctrine of eclipse is inapplicable in this case. There is no scope for the revival of a post-Constitutional law by an amendment of the Constitution."
Abstract This paper provides a discussion of the history, creation and ratification of the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This Amendment repealed prohibition, and allowed the sale and consumption of alcohol to resume in the United States. The social climate in the era leading up to prohibition is discussed, as well as the results of prohibition. Some holes in the 21st Amendment are discussed in view of our current century. The author, however, concludes that the U.S. Constitution remains a living document that is capable of responding to changes in American society.
From the Paper "During 1933, laws were passed in 43 states that provided for conventions in that or the following year (with the exceptions of Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Dakota) (Livingston 211). During the same year conventions were held in thirty-eight states of which thirty-seven ratified the amendment and one (South Carolina) rejected it. The thirty-sixth ratification was received in the late afternoon of December 5, 1933 and the certificate was issued by the Secretary of State less than an hour later (Livingston 211).
On December 6, 1933, the thirty-seventh ratification was received from Maine; as a result, it required less than eleven months after its submission to the states for the amendment to be ratified by the requisite three-fourths and the ill-fated experiment of national prohibition ended (Livingston 211). One of the reasons the process went so smoothly may have been based on a misconception among lawmakers at the time. For example, in his essay, "No More 'Cherry-Picking,'" Aaron Nielson (2004) reports that the 21st Amendment achieved the required votes in each house of Congress without causing much substantive debate, most likely because the majority of Congressmen at the time considered section one of the amendment, the simple repeal of constitutional Prohibition, as being its main thrust: "It seems that sections two and three of the Amendment were seen as being primarily procedural sections, necessary to support and implement section one" (Nielson 281). The implications of that fateful misperception have come back to haunt legislators today, particularly as they apply to section two."
Abstract A look at the the first amendment and a discussion on why the framers of the Constitution felt it was so important to include this clause. The author discusses several areas guaranteed by the First Amendment, such as freedom of religion that should not be taken lightly. This paper pays particular attention to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a federal law to limit pornography. The author also uses examples of religious oppression in China, and against the Dalai Lama as examples.
From the Paper "This does not, however, mean that the press is entirely free even today. There are at least two key areas over which advocates for limitation on the freedom of expression and advocates for a greater freedom of expression frequently clash. The first of these has also been in the news lately, for it concerns the idea of national security. The federal government has ? probably since there was a federal government ? withheld some information from the American people on the grounds that to reveal such information publicly would be tantamount to compromising the security of the nation."
Abstract This paper argues that the Federal Marriage Amendment should not be added to the United States Constitution. Some of the arguments include the ideas that the amendment rejects American traditions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness allowed by our individual rights and that we would be obliterating the family rights that many same-sex couples and their families currently have.
From the Paper "Another reason that the Federal Marriage Amendment should not be added is because we would be writing discrimination into the United States Constitution. The United States government has dealt with a lot of issues that seemed unheard of like racial integration and women's rights, but as the times changed, so did society. In fact, in the past there were laws prohibiting people of different races from marrying, but that law was overturned 35 years ago (American Civil Liberties Union, 2004). Our society is growing and changing and with that comes acceptance. The issues of the past are a part of everyday life now. Who's to say that gay marriage won"t be a thing of the past in a few years""
Abstract The writer explains that the issue of school prayer is not one of religious freedom, as it is already legal for children to pray in school, either individually or in groups. The paper explains that to forbid this prayer would violate both freedom of speech and religion. The paper explains that, despite this fact, there are factions that wish to instate specific, or mandated prayer in public schools. The paper explores whether it is necessary to modify the constitution to secure a very basic right that is already protected. In conclusion, the writer expresses the opinion that no constitutionalamendment is necessary to protect the right of children to pray in school. The writer feels that people of faith should consider that the personal issue of prayer, when manipulated by government, can lead to dangerous consequences, including exclusion, ostracization and even violence. The writer states the belief that the right of teaching children the basic truths of each child's chosen religion should be reserved for the parents and that a constitutionalamendment would turn this right over to the government.
Table of Contents:
To Restore State-Written Prayers
Allow Group Prayers in the Public Schools
Allow for Voluntary Prayer
Works Cited
From the Paper "The fate of a school prayer-religious liberties amendment has always rested in the hands of the Congress. And yes, there are those who will always campaign hard against this issue. There will be warnings that the argument for school prayer is limited to the extreme religious right and that to be associated with the issue would hurt those looking for re-election or that school prayer is too politically divisive and should be left alone. Even more strongly, there will be those that will argue that the issue is simply un-American since it would undermine the constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state. The rhetoric will always flow hard and freely on this issue."
Abstract This paper presents a history of the Fourth Amendment. The paper defines the Fourth Amendment, explains what it entails from a legal perspective what it entails and discusses the history of search and seizure Legality.
From the Paper "The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure against..."
Abstract This paper examines how there is a never-ending debate over which amendments of the constitution of Texas need revision, either partly or completely. It looks at how the constitution of Texas was adopted in 1876 and since then has been revised 377 times and how because of this, in many ways it is considered ridiculous, outdated and often proves to be trivial and sometimes unworkable. It discusses how the constitution of Texas is basically far longer than any other constitution of the United States and contains huge unnecessary details and since it has been revised so many times, contains sections that are now meaningless. It analyzes how the continual change in the constitution only indicates the failure of the state to implement laws that are more realistic.
From the Paper "Alabama, Colorado and Texas are all affected by this amendment which has undergone frequent revisions because the citizens of the states are not happy with the changes and fear the affect it would have on the state on a long-term basis. Many oppose the amendment of Section 49 of Article III, because they fear it will destroy the smaller units of the government, stop highway expansion and will make the state go into heavy debts since it might be unable to backfill the revenues lost to the local government bodies. Some also believe that it will cause the service districts, local governments and the date governments to fail since the state cannot spend more than 6% annually. This makes continuous backfilling impossible. The complete effect of this amendment in all three states will be disastrous because they will not be able to spend money on any of the services required by their constituency."
