Cover of: methods of changing the constitutions of the states | C. S. Bradley Read Online

methods of changing the constitutions of the states especially that of Rhode Island. by C. S. Bradley

  • 203 Want to read
  • ·
  • 10 Currently reading

Published by A. Mudge & Son, printers in Boston .
Written in English



  • Rhode Island,
  • United States.


  • Constitutions, State -- United States,
  • Constitutional conventions,
  • Rhode Island -- Constitution

Book details:

Edition Notes

ContributionsRhode Island. General Assembly, 1883. Senate.
LC ClassificationsJK2421 .B7 1885a
The Physical Object
Pagination104 p.
Number of Pages104
ID Numbers
Open LibraryOL6285590M
LC Control Number33003562

Download methods of changing the constitutions of the states


  The important process of changing the Constitution by means other than the formal amendment process has historically taken place and will continue to take place in five basic ways: Legislation enacted by Congress Actions of the President of . The U.S. constitution can be changed or amended using four different methods. The first method involve proposition of the amendment by states convention, followed by state conventions ratification. This method has never been used.   Informal method of amending the United States Constitution: By judicial interpretation (in Marbury v. Madisonthe Supreme Court declared that the federal courts had the power to nullify actions of the national government if found to be in conflict with the Constitution. Social, cultural and legal change. States collectively use four different methods to initiate state constitutional changes. Legislative proposal is by far the most common. Currently voters in eighteen states (but not Texas) may propose changes using a constitutional initiative process. Some states use special advisory bodies called constitutional commissions to formulate proposals.

All the current Constitutional amendments were created using the first method. Having drafted nineteen proposed amendments, Madison submitted them to Congress. Only twelve were approved by two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives and sent to the states for ratification. Some amendments are made for the public interest, for example: (i) to adjust the constitution to the environment within which the political system operates (including economics, technology, international relations, demographics, changes in the values of the population etc.); (ii) to correct provisions that have proved inadequate over time and (iii) to further improve constitutional rights or to strengthen . 2 days ago  This article considers the procedural and resulting legitimacy issues of constitution-making and fundamental constitutional amendment. These procedures are partly related to the different historical scenarios and substantive (material) factors that give rise to e-constitutions. It considers only those political and economic factors which contribute to specific constitution-making features. The Preamble states the broad purposes of the Constitutions is intended to serve. – promote the general welfare, common defense, more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, secure the blessing of liberty. Article I of the Constitution basically deals with the organization and powers of. Congress/Legislative branch.

The ways a state constitution can be amended or revised are: Via a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. Via an initiated constitutional amendment. The formal processes of amending the constitution are the processes articulated in Article V of the Constitution. These are the Congressional method and the Constitutional Convention methods. In theory the two houses first adopt a resolution indicating that they deem an amendment necessary. This procedure, however, has never actually been used.   An amendment to the Constitution may be proposed by any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate and will be considered under the standard legislative process in the form of a joint resolution. This innovative book also examines how constitutional idolatry may frustrate and distort constitutional change, and can lead to strong forms of constitutional paternalism emerging within the state. Ultimately, the book argues that idolising written constitutions is a hollow endeavour that will fail to produce better democratic outcomes or help.