The Eighth Amendment. But it doesn't exactly address "reasonable" bail it only prohibits the imposition of excessive bail.
It can only be changed by passing another constitutional amendment. The best example of this is the 18th amendment, which was later overturned by passage of the 21st amendment. (These amendments related to prohibition and then the repeal thereof.)
The first, which is why the Sedition Acts of 1798 caused so much uproar. They were the only laws in US History to ever blatantly infringe on that right.
No amendment guarantees the right to vote. There are three that say who cannot be "denied" the right to vote, by reason of race, or gender, or age.The 15th amendment : men cannot be denied the right because of their raceThe 19th amendment : women cannot be denied the vote because of gender.The 26th amendment : those citizens 18 years of age cannot be denied the vote because of their age.
they can take any amendment and change its meaning to what they want it to say.
Yes, but only by passing another constitutional amendment.
The problem of faithless electors would be done away with.
The Eighth Amendment. But it doesn't exactly address "reasonable" bail it only prohibits the imposition of excessive bail.
It can only be changed by passing another constitutional amendment. The best example of this is the 18th amendment, which was later overturned by passage of the 21st amendment. (These amendments related to prohibition and then the repeal thereof.)
Only the States can ratify a constitutional amendment. The President can veto legislation putting the amendment up for ratification, but can be overridden by the normal process in the Senate.
Only by a constitutional amendment
prohibition (illegalization of alcoholic beverages)
I only know that Amendment III takes away any right of the people.
fourth
prohibitionProhibition (the 18th amendment).The 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment.The Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition) in 1933.
For a few types of constitutional amendments that relate only to the administration of the Parliament of Canada (for example, a constitutional amendment to revoke a certain type of parliamentary privilege), the Parliament of Canada can enact the change without any provincial involvement. (The Senate has an absolute veto over any such constitutional amendments.)For most types of constitutional amendments, the Senate and Commons pass the amendment, and seven out of ten provincial legislatures (for provinces that represent at least 50% of the population of the provinces at the time) must pass resolutions that agree to the amendment. (The Senate can only block such a constitutional amendment for up to one hundred eighty days, should the Commons and provincial legislatures agree.)For some types of constitutional amendments that make changes to key institutions (for example, changes to the Queen, the Governor General, or the Lieutenant Governors), the amendment must not only be passed by the Senate and Commons, but all ten of the provincial legislatures. The refusal of the amendment by any one of the provinces would defeat the constitutional amendment. (The Senate can only block such an amendment, as above, for one hundred eighty days.)
The fact the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution says you have a right to an impartial trial implies that a random segment of the population is needed. This in turn implies that compulsory jury duty is in fact constitutional. If the only a segment of the population served as jurors, how can it be impartial.