Yes. The purpose of the Annapolis Convention was to make changes to the Articles of Confederation. The participants instead drafted a whole new constitution.
In a nascent democracy the first step is to create and establish a process whereby delegates to a constitutional convention cam be selected. This can be a muddled affair. Who, for example, has the authority to convene such a convention? In a nation with an established constitution, that constitution should include the procedure for amending the existing constitution. A convention may be organized to propose amendments but there is still a ratification step whereby the constituent provinces or sub-states formally accept the constitution.
Mayflower compact (: -i feel smart now-<3
Article V of the Constitution explains the amendment process of the Constitution, that is, how the Constitution may be amended. There are two processes for proposing amendments, either by two-thirds vote in each house of Congress or by an Article V Convention. All amendments thus far to the Constitution have been by proposal of Congress. The reason a convention to propose amendments, or Article V Convention has never been called despite the 750 applications from all 50 states, is because Congress refuses to obey the Constitution and call the convention. The Constitution mandates that if two-thirds of the state legislatures (34) apply for a convention, Congress must call it. A convention can only propose amendments to the present Constitution and is not empowered to write or propose a new or replacement Constitution. Regardless of how an amendment is proposed it must be ratified in the states either by three fourths vote in the state legislatures or by three fourths vote in state ratifying conventions. The method of ratification is by choice of Congress but Congress has no power to withhold a proposed amendment or veto it once it has been ratified. Once an amendment is ratified, it becomes part of our present Constitution.
two-thirds of the states may ask Congress to call a national convention.
How can the process of creating and ratifying the constitution be described
Yes. The purpose of the Annapolis Convention was to make changes to the Articles of Confederation. The participants instead drafted a whole new constitution.
you
chicken soup
The convention made it so that each state would hold a convention to ratify the Constitution. This meant a series of compromises and ratifications which were heavily influenced by Benjamin Franklin.
The convention made it so that each state would hold a convention to ratify the Constitution. This meant a series of compromises and ratifications which were heavily influenced by Benjamin Franklin.
The convention made it so that each state would hold a convention to ratify the Constitution. This meant a series of compromises and ratifications which were heavily influenced by Benjamin Franklin.
chicken soup
The convention made it so that each state would hold a convention to ratify the Constitution. This meant a series of compromises and ratifications which were heavily influenced by Benjamin Franklin.
The convention made it so that each state would hold a convention to ratify the Constitution. This meant a series of compromises and ratifications which were heavily influenced by Benjamin Franklin.
The convention made it so that each state would hold a convention to ratify the Constitution. This meant a series of compromises and ratifications which were heavily influenced by Benjamin Franklin.
In a nascent democracy the first step is to create and establish a process whereby delegates to a constitutional convention cam be selected. This can be a muddled affair. Who, for example, has the authority to convene such a convention? In a nation with an established constitution, that constitution should include the procedure for amending the existing constitution. A convention may be organized to propose amendments but there is still a ratification step whereby the constituent provinces or sub-states formally accept the constitution.
What do you mean by "This way?" Are you referring to the process that was used or to how they structured the document? And If you mean the process, do you mean why did the constitutional convention work according to the rules it did or do you mean whay was the convention held? If you mean why was the constitution structured the way it was, what specifically do you want to know? Michael Montagne