answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

The Framers wanted it to be relatively easy to consider changes to the Constitution. Yet they wanted proposed changes to be carefully considered.They also wanted to be sure that Amendments had the full support of the nation.Therefore, it is more difficult to ratify an Amendment and make it into law than it is to propose, or suggest, it.

User Avatar

Wiki User

8y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

15y ago

To make sure that fundamental changes in the structure of government would require substantial time and debate and reasoned consideration. That way bad ideas that look good on the surface could not be rushed into effect before everybody had a chance to think about them.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago

The writers of the Constitution were thoroughly displeased with the system of government established by the Articles of Confederation, which as the name implies was theoretically a federation of independent states. They wanted to radically change the government and thus they did not use the Articles of the Confederation as a starting point. In addition, the terms of the Constitution's ratification were different than those of the amendment process. Whereas all states had to ratify an amendment of the Articles of the Confederation for it to come into effect, only 9 states had to ratify for the Constitution to come into effect. While it can be argued that that ultimately since all the states eventually ratified the Constitution this was a legitimate, if complete, amending of the Articles of the Confederation under the rules of the Articles, if 9-12 states approved, the Constitution would still come into effect in violation of the Articles rules forbidding any other alliance between states. One of the reasons for this is that if 9 or more states formed their own alliance, the other states would become fully independent and lose the trade and defense benefits of the Confederation, and this put additional pressure on the last ratifying states.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

They were very sensitive to the huge impact an Amendment could have on the operation of the government (and country), and thus wanted to make sure that any such amendment would have a very broad support over a long period of time. That is, they wanted to make sure that only those things which the vast majority of people supported, and had considerable time to think about, would alter the Constitution. They did not want majorities ramming through the "cause of the day" amendments over the objections of anything but the smallest minority.

Unfortunately, there is broad consensus amongst current-day Constitutional scholars that the process is too difficult. In particular, the methods for just officially proposing an Amendment faces an enormous barrier in requiring a two-thirds majority of State Legislatures or a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.

Note that there have been a total of 33 Amendments proposed, with 27 passing, over the course of about 220 years. Excluding the Bill of Rights and an associated proposed amendment passed immediately after the Constitution, that leave 22 proposed Amendments with 17 passing. Almost half (12 of 27: 9th - 12th, 16th, 18th, 20th-23rd, 25th, 27th ) of all passing Amendments are considered "procedural" Amendments, in that they generally clarify or make minor adjustments to already defined portions of the Constitution, rather than make new significant Constitutional changes. As such, we have generally only significantly altered the form of the US government on four occasions:

  1. Initial Bill of Rights [1-10th] (1791)
  2. Post-Civil War [13-15th] (1865-1870)
  3. The 1910s Populism movement [17th, 19th] (1913,1920)
  4. The 1960s Civil Rights Movement [24th & 26th] (1964,1971)
This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago

Because they wanted to make sure that the majority agreed with the change

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

7y ago

They did that so that silly ideas or Willy nilly things that weren't needed or against the constitution couldn't be added easily.

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Why was the process for amending the constitution so complicated?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

Why do you think the authors of the Constitution decided to make amending the Constitution a slow and difficult process?

So that random and potentially faulty amendments could not be just stuck there..


Which statement best explains why the farmers of the Constitution defined the process of amending the document so specifically?

They wanted amendments to be made thoughtfully and with consensus.


Which statement best explains why the framers of the Constitution defined the process of amending the document so specifically?

They wanted amendments to be made thoughtfully and with consensus. (APEX)


What was added by the constitutional framers so that Congresses would have the authority to meet future needs?

The process of amending the Constitution in the future.


The constitution can be changed by a process called what?

Do you mean "What is a change to the U.S Constitution?" if so the answer is an amendment if not ask somebody else sorry!


Why is the formal amendment process so difficult and complicated?

The Framers wanted the people to be absolutely sure before they changed the Constitution.


Why is the process for amending the Constitution so comp?

First, the amendment must go to Congress and it must have a 2/3 pass. Second, the state legislatures must have a 3/4 pass.


Why is the redistricing process so complicated?

Politics


How does amending allow the us constitution to change with the changing times?

eats cheese so it can relax then it is really horney so it finds a female to play with


Why did the Framers of the Constitution create a mechanism for amending the Constitution but then make it very difficult to make any changes?

They knew that people were going to change, and that the Constitution had to change with them. In order to be a working document, it had to be changed to reflect what was going on -- they knew, for instance, that slavery was someday going to be abolished, but they knew it was going to be for several generations. However, they wanted the amendment process to be difficult, so that the Constitution wasn't changed by people's fleeting whims. In other words, they made the process difficult so that 'popular passions' wouldn't alter the Constitution.


Why have there been so few amendments made to the Constitution?

Apparently, the process for amending the Constitution is deliberately tedious so that only the most important national issues will make it through, and the government will not be weakened by abrupt change and too much rule of the people. As a result, there have been few amendments in US history, and only one of them was repealed.


What can be inferred about the process of amending the Constitution?

The farmers of the Constitution did not want it to be amended without careful thought