Article 21 of the Constitution and Right to privacy.
Michael Constitutional changes and David A. Super  In the coming months, a number of states are likely to consider resolutions that call for a convention to propose amendments to the U.
Constitution to require a balanced federal budget, and possibly to shrink federal authority in other, often unspecified, ways. Proponents of these resolutions claim that 28 of the 34 states required to call a constitutional convention already have passed such resolutions.
State lawmakers considering such resolutions should be skeptical of claims being made by groups promoting the resolutions such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC that states could control the actions or outcomes of a constitutional convention. A convention likely would be extremely contentious and highly politicized, and its results impossible to predict.
A number of prominent jurists and legal scholars have warned that a constitutional convention could open up the Constitution to radical and harmful changes.
Who knows what would come out of it? The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey.
A convention could write its own rules. The Constitution provides no guidance whatsoever on the ground rules for a convention. This leaves wide open to political considerations and pressures such fundamental questions as how the delegates would be chosen, how many delegates each state would have, and whether a supermajority vote would be required to approve amendments.
A convention could set its own agenda, possibly influenced by powerful interest groups. The only constitutional convention in U. Charged with amending the Articles of Confederation to promote trade among the states, the convention instead wrote an entirely new governing document.
A convention held today could set its own agenda, too.
There is no guarantee that a convention could be limited to a particular set of issues, such as those related to balancing the federal budget. As a result, powerful, well-funded interest groups would surely seek to influence the process and press for changes to the agenda, seeing a constitutional convention as an opportunity to enact major policy changes.
A convention could choose a new ratification process. The convention ignored the ratification process under which it was established and created a new process, lowering the number of states needed to approve the new Constitution and removing Congress from the approval process.
The states then ignored the pre-existing ratification procedures and adopted the Constitution under the new ratification procedures that the convention proposed.
Or it could follow the example of the convention and lower the required fraction of the states needed to approve its proposals from three-quarters to two-thirds. No other body, including the courts, has clear authority over a convention.The changes address matters of gender equality, inclusiveness in membership, delegate and bishop elections, as well as bishop accountability.
The Kenya Constitution is the supreme law of Kenya. It establishes the structure of the Kenyan government, and also defines the relationship between the government and the citizens of Kenya. Draft Amendments to U.S. Constitution This is a collection of draft amendments to the Constitution for the United States.
These should be regarded as short position statements on constitutional construction. This article is part of a series on the politics and government of the Republic of Korea; Constitution.
A legislatively referred constitutional amendment is a proposed constitutional amendment that appears on a state's ballot as a ballot measure because the state legislature in that state voted to put it before the voters..
A legislatively referred constitutional amendment is a limited form of direct democracy with comparison to the initiated constitutional amendment. Constitution - Constitutional change: Written constitutions are not only likely to give rise to greater problems of interpretation than unwritten ones, but they are also harder to change.
Unwritten constitutions tend to change gradually, continually, and often imperceptibly, in .