constitutional amendment essay

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

All Amendments to the US Constitution

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 17, 2023 | Original: June 14, 2021

Even before the U.S. Constitution was created, its framers understood that it would have to be amended to confront future challenges and adapt and grow alongside the new nation. In creating the amendment process for what would become the permanent U.S. Constitution, the framers made constitutional reform easier—but not too easy.

According to Article V of the Constitution, an amendment must either be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate , or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. Either way, a proposed amendment only becomes part of the Constitution when ratified by legislatures or conventions in three-fourths of the states (38 of 50 states).

Since the Constitution was ratified in 1789, hundreds of thousands of bills have been introduced attempting to amend it. But only 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been ratified , out of 33 passed by Congress and sent to the states. Under Article V, states also have the option of petitioning Congress to call a constitutional convention if two-thirds of state legislatures agree to do so. This has never occurred, though state legislatures have passed hundreds of resolutions over the years calling for a constitutional convention over issues ranging from a balanced budget to campaign finance reform.

Here is a summary of the 27 amendments to the Constitution:

First Amendment (ratified 1791)

In order to secure support for the Constitution among Anti- Federalists , who feared it gave too much power to the national government at the expense of individual states, James Madison agreed to draft a Bill of Rights during the first session of Congress. Of these first 10 amendments, the First Amendment is arguably the most famous and most important. It states that Congress can pass no law that encroaches on an American freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and freedom to petition the government. These fundamental rights of thought and expression go to the heart of the revolutionary idea of popular government, as envisioned in the Declaration of Independence .

Second Amendment (ratified 1791)

The text of the Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” During the Revolutionary War era, “militia” referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states.

Differing interpretations of the amendment have fueled a long-running debate over the original intention of the Second Amendment. The crux of the debate is whether the amendment protects the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, or whether it instead protects a collective right that should be exercised only through formal militia units. Those who argue it is a collective right point to the “well-regulated Militia” clause in the Second Amendment. Gun rights supporters, as well as Supreme Court decisions such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), have argued the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual person to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense.

Third Amendment (ratified 1791)

This amendment prohibits the quartering of militia in private homes in either war or peacetime without consent of the homes’ owners. As a reaction against past laws allowing British soldiers to take shelter in colonists’ homes whenever they wanted, the Third Amendment doesn’t appear to have much constitutional relevance today, as the federal government is unlikely to ask private citizens to house soldiers. The Supreme Court has never decided a case on the basis of the Third Amendment, but it has referred to its protections in cases surrounding issues of property and privacy rights.

Fourth Amendment (ratified 1791)

The Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” also grew directly out of colonial Americans’ experiences prior to the Revolutionary War . Most notably, British authorities made use of general warrants, which were court orders that allowed government officials to conduct searches basically without limitations. Beginning in the 20th century, with the growth in power of federal, state and local law enforcement, the Fourth Amendment became an increasingly common presence in legal cases, limiting the power of the police to seize and search people, their homes and their property and ensuring that evidence gathered improperly could be excluded from trials.

Fifth Amendment (ratified 1791)

In addition to the famous right to refuse to testify against oneself (or “plead the Fifth”), the Fifth Amendment establishes other key rights for defendants in criminal proceedings, including the need for formal accusation by a grand jury and the protection against double jeopardy, or being tried for the same crime twice. It also requires the federal government to pay just compensation for any private property it takes for public use. Most importantly, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one can face criminal punishment without receiving “due process of law,” a protection that the Supreme Court later extended under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment .

Sixth Amendment (ratified 1791)

The Sixth Amendment also deals with protecting the rights of people against possible violations by the criminal justice system. It ensures the right to a public trial by an impartial jury without a significant delay and gives defendants the right to hear the charges against them, call and cross-examine witnesses and retain a lawyer to defend them in court. 

According to the modern interpretation of the amendment—shaped by Supreme Court cases such as Powell v. Alabama (1932), which involved the defendants known as the Scottsboro Boys —the state is required to provide effective legal representation for any defendant who cannot afford to employ a lawyer on their own.

Seventh Amendment (ratified 1791)

With the Seventh Amendment, Madison addressed two Anti-Federalist concerns: that the document failed to require jury trials for civil (non-criminal) cases, and that it gave the Supreme Court the power to overturn the factual findings of juries in lower courts. Considered one of the most straightforward amendments in the Bill or Rights, the Seventh Amendment extends the right to a jury trial to federal civil cases such as automobile accidents, property disputes, breach of contract, and discrimination lawsuits. It also prevents federal judges from overturning jury verdicts based on questions of fact, rather than law. Unlike nearly every other right in the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has not extended the right to civil jury trial to the states, although most states do guarantee this right.

Eighth Amendment (ratified 1791)

The Eighth Amendment continues the theme of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by targeting potential abuses on the part of the criminal justice system. In banning the requirement of “excessive bail,” the imposition of “excessive fines,” and the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishment,” but leaving the exact interpretation of these terms unclear, it paved the way for future generations to battle over their meaning. In particular, differing opinions over what constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” fuel the ongoing debate in the United States over capital punishment.

Ninth Amendment (ratified 1791)

During the debate that produced the Bill of Rights, skeptics argued that by listing such fundamental rights in the Constitution, the framers would be implying that the rights they did not list did not exist. Madison sought to allay these fears with the Ninth Amendment. It ensures that even while certain rights are enumerated in the Constitution, people still retain other non-enumerated rights. 

Legal scholars and courts have long debated the meaning of the Ninth Amendment, particularly whether or not it provides a foundation for such rights as privacy (as in the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut ) or a woman’s right to an abortion (1973’s Roe v. Wade ).

10th Amendment (ratified 1791)

As the final amendment in the Bill of Rights , the 10th Amendment originally aimed to reassure Anti-Federalists by further defining the balance of power between the national government and those of the individual states. According to the 10th Amendment, the federal government’s powers are limited to those expressly given to it by the Constitution, while all other powers are reserved for the states or the people. Over the generations, debate has continued over which powers fall into this latter category, and what limitations should be placed on the expanding powers of the federal government.

11th Amendment (ratified 1795)

The first amendment to be ratified after the Bill of Rights, the 11th Amendment was also the first to be framed in direct response to a Supreme Court verdict. In Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), the Court had ruled that the plaintiff, a resident of South Carolina, had the right to sue Georgia for repayment of debts incurred during the Revolutionary War. After many states argued that using the federal courts in this way would shift too much power to the national government, Congress passed the 11th Amendment, which removes all cases involving suits between states from federal court jurisdiction.

12th Amendment (ratified 1804)

Passed in the wake of the chaotic presidential election of 1800 , in which Thomas Jefferson and his fellow Democratic-Republican Aaron Burr received the exact same number of votes in the Electoral College , the 12th Amendment provides the method for selecting president and vice president of the United States. Though Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution had mandated that each elector cast two votes without differentiating between their choices for president and vice president, the 12th Amendment requires electors to split the balloting for the two offices.

13th Amendment (ratified 1865)

More than six decades passed between ratification of the 12th and 13th Amendments. With the United States roiled by sectional tensions over slavery, few in the post-founding generations wanted to provoke a constitutional crisis by proposing a potentially divisive amendment. But after Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation , which freed only enslaved people behind enemy lines during the Civil War , support grew for a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery. Ratified after Lincoln’s assassination, the 13th Amendment finally put an end to the institution that had marred the country since 1619 .

14th Amendment (ratified 1868)

Intended to give Congress the authority to protect the rights of Black citizens in the South, where white-dominated state governments enacted discriminatory “ Black codes ” immediately following the end of the Civil War , the 14th Amendment was arguably the most important of the three amendments passed during Reconstruction . Section 1 of the amendment reversed the Supreme Court’s notorious decision in 1857’s Dred Scott v. Sandford by stating that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. It also extended the civil rights of citizens and their right to due process by protecting civil rights from infringement by the states as well as the federal government. Finally, Section 1 guarantees “equal protection under the laws” to all citizens.

Together with the Bill of Rights, these broad protections form the foundations of civil rights law in the United States, and have been invoked over the years by various groups of citizens ( as well as corporations ) seeking equal treatment under the law.

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment repealed the three-fifths clause of the original Constitution, which held that each enslaved person counted for three-fifths of a person. It specified that every resident of a state should be counted as a full person for the purposes of congressional representation. Section 3, aimed at former Confederate leaders, holds that Congress can bar any official who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States from holding public office. Section 4 exempted federal and state governments from paying any debts incurred by the former Confederate states or compensating them for the loss of their human property. Finally, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the authority to create laws to enforce the amendment’s provisions, a sweeping mandate that would strengthen the power of the federal government in relation to the states.

15th Amendment (ratified 1870)

After Congress enfranchised Black male voters in the South by passing the Reconstruction Act of 1867, it sought to protect this right under the Constitution. As the last of the so-called Civil War amendments, all of which sought to ensure equality for African Americans, the 15th Amendment outlaws discrimination in voting rights on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude. With the end of Reconstruction in 1877, however, Southern states effectively disenfranchised Black voters by enacting poll taxes, literacy tests and other discriminatory practices. The promise of the 15th Amendment to protect Black voting rights remained unfulfilled until the civil rights movement and passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

16th Amendment (ratified 1913)

Though Americans had paid income taxes in earlier eras (during the Civil War , for example), the Supreme Court ruled in 1894’s Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust that an income tax imposed by Congress was unconstitutional given Article I’s requirement that such “direct” taxes be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. The decision drew widespread outrage, and led to the passage of the first of four constitutional amendments that would be ratified during the Progressive era . The 16th Amendment gives Congress the power to enact a nationwide income tax, vastly expanding the federal government’s source of revenue and spending power and enabling it to become a stronger force in American life than ever before.

17th Amendment (ratified 1913)

The movement in favor of the popular election of senators gained strength in the late 19th century, fueled by a view of the Senate as an out-of-touch, elitist group subject to corruption. By 1912, many state legislatures had lent their vocal support to the change, leading to ratification of the 17th Amendment the following year. The amendment substantially altered the structure of Congress as set out in Article I of the Constitution, removing from state legislatures the power to choose U.S. senators and giving it directly to the voters of each state.

18th Amendment (ratified 1919)

Though the temperance movement had existed since the earliest years of the nation’s history, it gained strength during the Progressive Era , especially in rural American communities. The new income tax freed the government from its dependence on the liquor tax, and senators (now directly elected) were subject to greater pressure from temperance advocates. Congress followed up on ratification of the 18th Amendment, which banned “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors,” but not their consumption, with passage of the Volstead Act to enforce it. Prohibition remained in effect for the next 13 years, until its repeal with the 21st Amendment.

19th Amendment (ratified 1920)

Susan B. Anthony and other supporters of women’s suffrage were bitterly disappointed after the Civil War, when Congress excluded gender from the list of categories that could not be used to deny voting rights in the 15th Amendment. With a constitutional amendment stalled in Congress for decades, suffragists focused their efforts on the states, where they were able to make gradual progress . By the time the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920, forbidding the United States or any state from denying or abridging the right to vote to any citizen “on account of sex,” 30 states and one territory allowed women to vote in at least some elections. Even after ratification of the 19th Amendment, many women of color were subject to various types of voter suppression until passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 .

20th Amendment (ratified 1933)

Before ratification of the 20th Amendment, 13 months had passed between the election of a new Congress and the time it held its first meeting. The amendment shortened this “lame-duck” period by specifying that regular terms for members of the Senate and House of Representatives begin on January 3 of the year following their election. It also moved up the inauguration of the president by six weeks, moving it to January 20. The 20th Amendment was quickly proposed, passed and ratified during the Great Depression , when many people regretted that Franklin D. Roosevelt had to wait four months to succeed the unpopular Herbert Hoover .

21st Amendment (ratified 1933)

Prohibition became widely unpopular during the Depression, especially in American cities, where some demonstrators marched in parades carrying signs declaring “We Want Beer.” The 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition and left the states in charge of regulating the sale and consumption of liquor, is the only amendment that repeals an earlier amendment (the 18th). It’s also the only one to be ratified by state ratifying conventions rather than state legislatures. As the temperance movement still held sway in many states, supporters of the 21st Amendment realized that state legislators could be subject to political pressure, and opted to follow the convention route instead.

22nd Amendment (ratified 1951)

Though term limits were not a part of the Constitution, later generations of Americans believed that George Washington set a valuable precedent when he made the decision to step away from the presidency after two terms in 1796. Several later presidents flirted with the idea of a third term, but Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first to follow through. Guiding the nation through the tumultuous era spanning the Depression and World War II , FDR won an unprecedented four presidential elections , but died several months after his fourth term began in 1945. Two years later, Congress began the process of passing the 22nd Amendment, which limited future presidents to two terms .

23rd Amendment (ratified 1961)

Since the District of Columbia became the seat of the U.S. government in 1800, debate had raged over the inability of its residents to participate in federal elections. The 23rd Amendment addressed this, giving D.C. residents the right to choose electors for presidential and vice-presidential elections in the same way the states do. While the original version of the amendment approved by the Senate would have granted the District representation in the House of Representatives, the House rejected this idea. In 1978, Congress adopted another proposed amendment that provided for D.C. to “be treated as though it were a State,” including congressional representation, but it failed to win ratification .

24th Amendment (ratified 1964)

Starting in the years following Reconstruction , many white-dominated Southern legislatures enacted poll taxes as a method of disenfranchising Black voters . Congress repeatedly debated legislation to eliminate poll taxes starting in 1939, but none passed. Though only five states still had such taxes in place by 1964, supporters of the civil rights movement saw their abolition as an important objective in combating racism and discrimination against Black Americans. The 24th Amendment applied only to federal elections, and after its ratification several southern states tried to maintain poll taxes for separately held state elections. In Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), the Supreme Court deemed such taxes a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

25th Amendment (ratified 1967)

After John F. Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, a movement grew to clarify the vague procedures that had existed around presidential disability and the right of succession. The 25th Amendment states that the vice president will succeed the president in case of the latter’s death or resignation, and lays out the procedure for filling a vacancy in the vice president’s office. It also allows the president to declare a temporary inability to serve—as in the case of undergoing surgery—and resume powers when able. The fourth and most controversial section, which has never been invoked, empowers the vice president to become acting president if the president is determined (by the vice president and the majority of the Cabinet, backed by Congress) to be unable to perform the duties of the office.

26th Amendment (ratified 1971)

The long-running debate over whether young Americans should be asked to risk their lives fighting for their country before they were given the right to vote intensified during the Vietnam War . In 1970, Congress passed a statute lowering the age of voting in all federal, state and local elections to 18. When Oregon challenged that law, the Supreme Court sided with the state, ruling that Congress only had jurisdiction over federal elections. With a groundswell of popular support, the 26th Amendment was passed and ratified in record time, lowering the legal voting age to 18 in all U.S. elections.

27th Amendment (ratified 1992)

By prohibiting any law raising or lowering the salaries of members of Congress from taking effect before the start of a new session of Congress begins, the 27th Amendment aims to reduce corruption in the legislative branch of the federal government. Originally introduced by Madison, it was left in limbo when the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791 and largely forgotten by the late 20th century, when Gregory Watson, a college student in Texas, read about it in a class on American government. Watson later rallied enough popular support (and resentment of Congress) to get the requisite three-quarters of U.S. states to ratify the 27 Amendment by 1992, nearly 200 years after Madison first proposed it .

Constitutional Amendment Process. Federal Register, National Archives .

Jack N. Rakove, ed. The Annotated U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence . (Harvard University Press, 2009)

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Heritage Foundation .

Interactive Constitution. Constitution Center .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States

July 21, 1788–Present Day

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States have been made 27 times since it was ratified on June 21, 1788. Article V of the Constitution gives the authority to amend the document and outlines the process for proposing and ratifying Amendments.

James Madison of Virginia wrote the first draft of the Bill of Rights — the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Summary of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States

Amendments to the United States Constitution can be made by following the process outlined in Article V of the Constitution. Since the Constitution was ratified on July 21, 1788, a total of 27 Amendments have been proposed and approved by three-fourths of the states. The first 10 Amendments are known as the Bill of Rights and protect individual liberties, rights, and freedoms. Another important subset of the 27 Amendments is the Reconstruction Amendments, which were passed after the Civil War ended on April 9, 1865.

Quick Facts About the Amendments to the Constitution (and some Fun Facts)

• The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights.
• The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791.
• The Civil War Amendments — also called the Reconstruction Amendments — are the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
• The Voting Rights Amendments are the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments.
• Fun Fact — It took 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days for the 27th Amendment to be ratified.
• Fun Fact — Prohibition was established with the 18th Amendment and repealed with the  21st Amendment.

History of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States

The Constitution of the United States is a document that serves as the supreme law of the nation and no law can be passed that contradicts its principles. However, it is a “living” document that can be changed — or amended — through a process that is found within the document itself, in Article V. 

The Articles of Confederation established a clear “league of friendship” between the states and gave significant power to the Congress of the Confederation . However, Congress was unable to raise money through taxes to pay for anything. Further, all decisions required a unanimous vote of the states, which was difficult to achieve due to sectional interests.

A movement to update the Articles and redesign the government started. In May 1787, 12 of the 13 states send delegates to Philadelphia to discuss changes. George Washington was chosen to preside over the meetings. Instead of updating the Articles, the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention replaced the Articles with something entirely new — the Constitution of the United States. 

Despite the development of the Constitution, there was disagreement between two significant factions . The people who favored the Constitution became known as Federalists. Those who disagreed, or even opposed it, were called Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists argued the Constitution failed to provide details regarding basic civil rights — a Bill of Rights — while Federalists argued the Constitution provided significant protection for individual rights.

In the following months, each state held its own Constitutional Convention and debated whether or not to approve the new government. Nine of the 13 states needed to vote in favor — or ratify — the Constitution in order for it to become the law of the land.

From October 1787 to August 1788, James Madison , Alexander Hamilton , and John Jay — all Founding Fathers — and all Federalists — wrote a series of essays in support of the Constitution. The essays, known as the Federalist Papers, were printed in the newspapers. They helped explain the Constitution, along with the thought process and purpose behind each article. In regard to the Bill of Rights, Federalist No. 84 argued the people did not surrender any rights by adopting the Constitution.

On December 7, 1787, Delaware ratified the Constitution. However, in some states, approval hinged on the Bill of Rights. Finally, a compromise was agreed to — the Massachusetts Compromise — when four states agreed to ratify the Constitution as long as they could send recommendations for amendments to Congress.  

New Hampshire Became the ninth state to ratify, on June 21, 1788. Afterward, the Confederation Congress set March 9, 1789, as the day the nation would start operating under the Constitution. By March 9, the only state that had not ratified was Rhode Island, and it approved the Constitution on May 29, 1790.

On June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress, James Madison proposed a series of amendments to the House of Representatives. Madison’s proposals eventually became the Bill of Rights — the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights is based on many things, including the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights , and the Magna Carta.

Over time, 17 more amendments have been made to the Constitution. Of the 27 amendments that have been ratified, 25 of them are functioning. The 18th Amendment — for Prohibition — was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

When amendments are ratified, they are added at the end of the Constitution — after the original articles and previous amendments. This allows the original Constitution to remain intact and makes it a living document.

The 27 Amendments to the Constitution In Order

The 27 Amendments to the United States Constitution are listed below, in order. There is a section for each Amendment that includes the full text of the Amendment and a brief explanation of what it means.

1st Amendment — Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition

What does First Amendment say? 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What does it mean?  

The First Amendment means Congress cannot make laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. It guarantees freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, and the right to petition the government.

2nd Amendment — The Right to Bear Arms

What does the Second Amendment say?  

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment means the government must allow private citizens the to own weapons and bear arms. It also means militia is vital to security and freedom.

3rd Amendment — Quartering of Soldiers

What does the Third Amendment Say?  

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The Third Amendment means the government cannot use private homes to house soldiers, without the approval of the owner.

4th Amendment — Search and Seizure

What does the Fourth Amendment say?  

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment means the government cannot perform unauthorized searches and seizures of private property, which was allowed in Colonial America by Writs of Assistance . The government must acquire a search warrant first, which must be issued by a judge. The search warrant must provide details about where the search will be conducted and what is being searched for.

5th Amendment — Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self Incrimination, Due Process, Takings

What does the Fifth Amendment say?  

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Fifth Amendment means citizens who have been accused of a crime have a right to a grand jury, are protected from double jeopardy, and cannot be forced to testify against themselves. Further, citizens cannot lose personal possessions without due process and private property cannot be taken without proper compensation — the concept of eminent domain.

6th Amendment — Right to Trial by Jury, Witnesses, Counsel

What does the Sixth Amendment say?  

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The Sixth Amendment means the accused has a right to a fair, speedy trial, by a jury of peers — in the same area the crime was committed. The accused has a right to confront witnesses, and to have witnesses on their behalf. The accused also has a right to a lawyer.

7th Amendment — Jury Trial in Civil Lawsuits

What does the Seventh Amendment say?  

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The Seventh Amendment means the right to a trial by a jury of peers extends to civil lawsuits in federal courts.

8th Amendment — Excessive Fines and Punishment

What does the Eighth Amendment say?  

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The Eighth Amendment means citizens are protected against excessive punishments.

9th Amendment — Unspecified Rights Are Retained by the People

What does the Ninth Amendment say?  

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Ninth Amendment means the rights of the citizens are not limited to the rights mentioned in the Constitution.

10th Amendment — Rights of the States or People

What does the Tenth Amendment say?  

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment says the powers of the Federal Government are listed in the Constitution. Anything not listed in the Constitution belongs to the states or the people. Enumerated means to “mention one by one.”

11th Amendment — Law Suits Against States

What does the Eleventh Amendment say?  

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

The Eleventh Amendment means that federal courts cannot hear certain lawsuits against states or other countries.

12th Amendment — Election of the President and Vice President

What does the Twelfth Amendment say?  

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. –]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

The Twelfth Amendment means the person who wins the most Electoral Votes wins the Presidency, and the person with the second most votes is Vice President.

13th Amendment — Abolition of Slavery

What does the Thirteenth Amendment say?  

Section 1. 

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 

Section 2. 

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Thirteenth Amendment means that slavery is illegal in the United States, and can only be used as punishment when someone has been convicted of a crime.

Additional Resources for the 13th Amendment on American History Central

• Thirteenth Amendment — Summary, History, and Significance
• Thirteenth Amendment — Facts
• James M. Ashley — Biography of the author of the 13th Amendment

14th Amendment — Rights of Citizenship, Equal Protection, Apportionment, Civil War Debt

What does the Fourteenth Amendment say?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The Fourteenth Amendment means citizens of the United States — people born in the United States or become naturalized — are guaranteed equal protection under the law. This included formerly enslaved people who were freed after the Civil War.

Additional Resources for the 14th Amendment on American History Central

• Fourteenth Amendment — Summary, History, and Significance
• Fourteenth Amendment — Facts
• John A. Bingham — Biography of the author of the 14th Amendment

15th Amendment — Right to Vote Cannot be Denied Based on Race

What does the Fifteenth Amendment say?  

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

What does it mean?

The Fifteenth Amendment means the right to vote cannot be denied based on race or religion and gave African-American men the right to vote.

Additional Resources for the 15th Amendment on American History Central

• Fifteenth Amendment — Summary, History, and Significance
• Fifteenth Amendment — Facts

16th Amendment — Federal Income Tax

What does the Sixteenth Amendment say?  

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Sixteenth Amendment means the government has the right to levy an income tax on all citizens.

17th Amendment — Senators Elected by Popular Vote

What does the Seventeenth Amendment say?  

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The Seventeeth Amendment means United States Senators are elected by the popular vote of the citizens of the state, not the state legislature.

18th Amendment — Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquors

What does the Eighteenth Amendment say?  

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The Eighteenth Amendment means alcohol cannot be made, transported, or sold in the United States.

19th Amendment — Right to Vote Cannot be Denied Based on Gender

What does the Nineteenth Amendment say?  

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

The Nineteenth Amendment means women have the right to vote.

20th Amendment — Presidential Term and Succession, Assembly of Congress

What does the Twentieth Amendment say?  

The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

The Twentieth Amendment means there are specific dates when the offices of the President, Vice President, and Congressmen start and end.

21st Amendment — Repeal of the 18th Amendment

What does the Twenty-First Amendment say?  

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The Twenty-First Amendment means the 18th Amendment is repealed. Alcohol can be made, transported, and sold in the United States.

22nd Amendment — Term Limits on Office of the President

What does the Twenty-Second Amendment say?  

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

The Twenty-Second Amendment means there are term limits for the office of President.

23rd Amendment — Representation for Washington, D.C.

What does the Twenty-Third Amendment say?  

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Twenty-Third Amendment means citizens of Washington, D.C. can vote for presidential electors.

24th Amendment — Abolition of Poll Taxes

What does the Twenty-Fourth Amendment say?

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment means that states are not allowed to charge citizens a poll tax — or fee — to vote.

25th Amendment — Succession of Office of President

What does the Twenty-Fifth Amendment say?  

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

The Twenty-Fifth Amendment means there is a process to follow in case the office of the President or Vice President.

26th Amendment — Voting Rights at Age of 18

What does the Twenty-Sixth Amendment say?  

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment means citizens have the right to vote once they have reached the age of 18.

27th Amendment — Congressional Compensation

What does the Twenty-Seventh Amendment say?  

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

The Twenty-Seventh Amendment means there is a specific time when the members of Congress can vote to give themselves a pay raise.

The Process to Amend the United States Constitution

The Constitution of the United States is a document that serves as the supreme law of the nation. It was ratified on June 21, 1788, and replaced the Articles of Confederation. On September 13, 1788, the Confederation Congress passed an ordinance that set dates for choosing electors, electing the President, and transitioning to the new government. 

The original Constitution contains seven articles that lay out the framework of the government. Article V lays out and authorizes the process for making changes to — or amending — the Constitution. In order to change the Constitution, Amendments must be:

• Proposed by Congress or by a Constitutional Convention.
• Approved by at least three-fourths of the states.
• Announced by the Archivist of the United States.

Authorization of Amendments to the Constitution

The authorization to change the Constitution is found in Article V:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Process to Propose Amendments to the Constitution

Article V of the Constitution provides two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution. 

• Congress can propose an amendment to the Constitution by passing a bill in both houses, by a vote of two-thirds.
• A constitutional convention can be convened by a vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures. Once the convention convenes, it can propose amendments.

Once a proposal is approved, it must be sent to the states for approval. When proposed amendments are sent to the states, the proposal usually carries an expiration date.

Process to Ratify and Approve Amendments to the Constitution

In order for a proposed amendment to be ratified, three-fourths of the states must vote in favor of it. When the number of states needed for ratification is reached, the Archivist of the United States proclaims the proposal as a new amendment to the Constitution. After that, it is published in the Federal Register and then in the United States Statutes-at-Large.

Short History of the Transition from the Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution

The American Revolutionary War officially ended in 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed. The United States achieved the independence from Great Britain that it had fought for, but was still a young nation, with a weak central government under the Articles of Confederation. The government was weak under the articles for several reasons. For example, they did not provide the Confederation Congress with the authority to enforce the Treaty of Paris, regulate interstate commerce, or respond to internal uprisings.

Potomac Company

In 1784, George Washington started to develop a plan to help merchants on the east coast could establish trade with settlers on the western frontier. He did not want to see them doing business with any foreign nations that had a presence in the west, including Great Britain and Spain. The following year, Washington helped establish the Potomac Company, which intended to build a series of canals and locks to connect the Potomac River with the James River and Ohio River.

Mount Vernon Conference

By 1785, Virginia and Maryland realized they needed to have some sort of agreement over the usage and jurisdiction of the Potomac River, which is a shared waterway between the two states. Delegates from both states were supposed to convene in Alexandria, Virginia on March 21. However, the location of the meeting was changed to Mount Vernon, George Washington’s estate. Some of the prominent participants at the Mount Vernon Conference were Samuel Chase , Thomas Stone, George Mason, and James Madison.

Mount Vernon Compact

The conference lasted from March 25 to March 28, and the outcome was the Mount Vernon Compact — also known as the Compact of 1785. The compact set up regulations that covered a variety of things, including tolls, fishing rights, and debt collection.

Success of the Mount Vernon Conference Leads to the Annapolis Convention

Moving forward, the Mount Vernon Conference served as the model for states to follow when negotiating with each other. It also led James Madison to suggest the states should continue to discuss issues between the states, especially those dealing with commerce. Madison introduced a proposal to the Virginia General Assembly that suggested each state send commissions to a conference to discuss interstate issues. Maryland agreed to the conference on January 21, 1786. After that, Virginia invited the other 11 states to a convention, which was set to be held in Annapolis, Maryland on September 11, 1786.

Annapolis Convention

Five states send delegates to Annapolis, which was held from September 11 to September 14, 1786. The states that sent delegates were:

• New York — Egbert Benson, Alexander Hamilton
• New Jersey — Abraham Clark, William Houston, James Schureman
• Pennsylvania — Tench Coxe
• Delaware — George Read, John Dickinson , Richard Bassett
• Virginia — Edmund Randolph, James Madison, St. George Tucker

The meetings were held at Mann’s Tavern, and were officially called “Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government.” The plan was to discuss protectionist trade laws between the states, but the federal government did not have the power to regulate trade under the Articles of Confederation. During the course of the proceedings, it became clear that another meeting, with a much broader scope, was going to be needed. The convention produced a report that was sent to Congress that suggested another convention.

Shays’ Rebellion

In August 1786, before the Annapolis Convention even began, Shays’ Rebellion started. The insurrection was led by Daniel Shays , a Revolutionary War veteran. Shays and the insurgents, mostly poor farmers, were protesting crippling economic policies in Massachusetts that caused many farm foreclosures and the imprisonment of debtors. 

Shays’ followers, who called themselves Regulators, marched on several Massachusetts courthouses in 1786 to halt foreclosure proceedings and the imprisonment of debtors. Shays’ Rebellion reached its climax on January 25, 1787, when the Massachusetts militia defeated Shays and his followers as they attempted to capture a federal arsenal at Springfield, Massachusetts. The insurgency ended for the most part on February 3, 1787, when the remainder of Shays’ followers were surprised by militia forces and took advantage of an offer of a general amnesty. 

Although the rebellion was put down, Shays’ Rebellion strengthened the argument that the central government was too weak. The inability of the government to manage the finances of the young nation contributed to the uprising, and then its inability to put it down showed further weakness.

Thomas Jefferson , who was in Paris at the time, wrote a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787. Jefferson discussed Shays’ Rebellion and made the following observation — and his famous quote — on how the incident could contribute to the “sound health” of the nation’s government.

“Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government.”

Philadelphia Convention of 1787

On May 14, 1787, 55 delegates from 12 states met in Philadelphia to debate revisions to the Articles of Confederation. However, many delegates, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, saw an opportunity to create an entirely new government. George Washington was chosen to preside over the meetings, which lasted until September 17. Over the course of 100 days, the delegates debated, presented plans, and made compromises that led to the creation of the United States Constitution. 

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was adopted and signed by 39 delegates, including Benjamin Franklin . Legend has it that as Franklin walked out of Carpenter’s Hall, someone asked, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” To which Franklin responded , “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Debate on the Constitution

Article VII of the Constitution stated it would become the law of the land when it was ratified by 9 of the 13 states. The Constitution was sent to each state legislature and each of them reviewed it and decided whether to approve it or not.

Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut approved it over the course of the next few months. However, some states, such as Massachusetts had concerns over the broad powers of the strong, centralized government and the lack of individual rights, which were found in the English Bill of Rights.

Compromises and Proposed Amendments

In Massachusetts, there was considerable opposition to the Constitution. However, a compromise was reached when Samuel Adams and John Hancock agreed to support the Constitution — but only if amendments could be proposed. Massachusetts proposed several amendments, including some that became part of the 5th Amendment and the 10th Amendment. Virginia and New York followed along with Massachusetts and agreed to ratify as long as amendments could be proposed.

Ratification of the Constitution

Maryland and South Carolina ratified after Massachusetts. Then, on June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the 9th state to ratify the Constitution. Afterward, it was agreed the new government would begin operating under the Constitution on March 4, 1789.

The First 10 Amendments

The 1st United States Congress met in Federal Hall in New York City. Among the first members of the House of Representatives was James Madison, who had been elected in part because he promised to introduce a series of amendments that would form a bill of rights for citizens. 

The amendments proposed by Madison were inspired by the Magna Carta of 1215, the English Bill of Rights, and many of the infringements on rights made by British laws, including the Coercive Acts. He leaned heavily on the existing state constitutions and other key documents, including George Mason’s “Virginia Declaration of Rights.”

Both Houses of Congress made changes to Madison’s original proposal and eventually, 12 articles were considered. On September 25, 1789, they were approved by a joint resolution of Congress and forwarded to the 14 states on September 28.

10 of the 12 articles were approved by the states and became the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution — The Bill of Rights.

Significance of the 27 Amendments

The 27 Amendments to the Constitution are important to the history of the United States because they have helped make it the world’s longest-surviving written charter of government. The Constitution was written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and went into effect in 1789. For more than two centuries, it has stood as the basis of law and order in the United States because the framers created a successful balance between the government and the people. It is a document that can be changed and updated, without losing sight of the principles it was based on. Those principles were borne out of the Enlightenment and the American Revolution. They came from the brilliant minds of men and women who understood the long-term value of a government framework that could be updated and amended — so it could truly be a government for all people.

Amendments for AP US History (APUSH)

This section provides resources for students who are preparing for the AP United States History Exam .

Definition of Amendments for APUSH

A Constitutional Amendment in United States history is an update or addition to the United States Constitution. Amendments are authorized by Article V of the Constitution. Article V also defines the process for proposing and ratifying Amendments. Amendments are added at the end, so it is a living document.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Amendments to the Constitution

The United States Constitution has 27 Amendments that have been proposed, ratified, and announced. The first 10 Amendments are known as the Bill of Rights. The other 17 Amendments deal with many issues, including voting rights, the transition of office, and term limits. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

Some sources say there are 33 Amendments because that is how many have been proposed by Congress. 27 Amendments have been proposed, ratified, and announced. There are 6 Amendments that were proposed and either failed or have not been ratified. 4 Amendments have not been ratified. 2 Amendments failed.

James Madison of Virginia wrote the first draft of the Bill of Rights. Although Madison’s original draft was modified by both Houses of Congress, placed specific limitations on the government and explicitly guaranteed the rights of citizens. Madison’s changes were presented as a list of Amendments to follow Article VII.

Congressman John A. Bingham wrote the 14th Amendment. He is sometimes referred to as the “James Madison of the 14th Amendment.” Bingham was a moderate Republican and abolitionist from the state of Ohio. The Amendment guaranteed the Bill of Rights applied to Americans freed from slavery after the Civil War.

The 18th Amendment was abolished because it failed for various reasons. Americans still wanted alcohol, which increased the bootlegging industry, speakeasies, and violence. Loopholes in the Volstead Act led to the corruption of public officials. There was no measurable benefit to the act in terms of worker productivity or absenteeism.

APUSH Review: Important Amendments

This video covers the details about important Amendments students need to know about for the AP US History exam.

• Written by Randal Rust

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Ideas for New Amendments to the Constitution

Readers address the E.R.A., the Electoral College, gun rights, abortion, the environment and other issues.

To the Editor:

Re “ Will We Ever Amend the Constitution Again? ,” by Jesse Wegman (Opinion essay, Sunday Review, Aug. 8):

I’d like to thank Mr. Wegman and the contributors to the companion article, “ It’s Been 50 Years Since America’s Last Real Update to Its Constitution ,” for their discussions of constitutional reform issues and proposals. Large-scale reforms are urgently needed but, to be adequate to our democracy’s needs, reforms must extend beyond the proposals discussed to the basic structure of the Constitution and its institutions.

As an example of the breadth required, readers might like to know that a group of leading constitutional scholars led by Sanford Levinson has recently engaged in extensive deliberations and in June published an entirely new constitution, the text of which can be found at democracyjournal.org/magazine/61/a-new-constitution-for-the-united-states .

It is beyond doubt that achieving meaningful reforms will require holding a new constitutional convention, and common fears of such a convention on both the political left and right are misplaced.

George William Van Cleve Denver The writer is a dean’s visiting scholar at Georgetown University Law Center.

Contrary to Jesse Wegman, constitutional stability is a virtue, not a vice. James Madison, father of the Constitution, who rejected Thomas Jefferson’s rash idea of a new constitution every 19 years , denounced mutability of the laws in Federalist 62. Among other things, he explained: “Great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements.”

The supermajorities required to amend the Constitution have not fossilized the document. Indeed, every amendment advanced by seven legal scholars and writers in “It’s Been 50 Years Since America’s Last Real Update to Its Constitution” can be enacted by legislation without disturbing the Constitution, but for extinguishing a woman’s right to choose. And the latter has been uniformly defeated in popular referendums by simple majorities.

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) that the Constitution was intended to endure for the ages and to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs, a long-headed precept that experience has vindicated.

Scapegoating the Constitution will not solve or mitigate our multiple political ills.

Bruce Fein Washington The writer was an associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan and is the author of “Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy.”

All of the amendments suggested by your panel of scholars, except the cumbersome proposal to change the Supreme Court, are single-issue amendments. They would address some pet peeve of the writer, while doing nothing to address the grave failure of government, time and again, to act in the interests of the citizenry. Yet, in a democracy, nothing could be more critical.

One simple four-word revision to the First Amendment, however, would address an abundance of ills facing our country today, by turning the power away from moneyed interests and returning it to the people: “Money is not speech.”

Richie Feder Philadelphia The writer is an adjunct faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and the Temple University Beasley School of Law.

Jesse Wegman dismisses the Equal Rights Amendment — which bans discrimination on account of sex — as one that “will probably never be adopted because it exceeded the time limit set out in the original bill and because several states that approved it later rescinded their ratification.”

What Mr. Wegman fails to mention is the ongoing bipartisan effort in Congress to remove the time limit. A resolution is pending in the Senate , and a similar one has passed twice in the House.

There is also pending litigation brought by Virginia, Illinois and Nevada, the most recent ratifying states, arguing that the E.R.A. now satisfies all constitutional requirements and that a time limit in a joint resolution cannot stand in its way. Many other states — led by New York — filed a brief supporting this position, along with more than a hundred major corporations and a host of advocates for women’s rights.

Mr. Wegman is right that the process for amendment is difficult. But the Constitution does not impose a time limit on ratification. Nor does it provide for a state to rescind once it has ratified.

In light of the continuing efforts in Congress and the courts, the E.R.A. should hardly be dismissed out of hand. It is alive and well, and it is as important as ever.

Linda Coberly Chicago The writer is the chair of the ERA Coalition’s Legal Task Force.

Alexandra DeSanctis proposes a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn. Such an amendment might actually have traction if it had sections that gave protections to the children and mothers both before and long after birth — protections such as guaranteed prenatal care, six months leave of absence from work after giving birth, universal prekindergarten, wages above poverty level for full-time workers, and affordable robust health care for parents and children.

It is an unfortunate truth in America that many legislators and others who want to limit a mother’s freedom to choose an abortion are not willing to provide meaningful and necessary benefits to the living.

Roy Goldman Haverford, Pa.

Fifty years ago, Pennsylvania adopted a constitutional amendment that I wrote providing its citizens with the “right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment.” It also provides that “Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come,” and it requires the state to “conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.”

A comparable amendment to the U.S. Constitution would do our nation well.

The Biden administration has proposed a comprehensive program to address climate change. But future administrations can repeal or withdraw these efforts, just as President Donald Trump repealed dozens of environmental changes made by President Barack Obama.

An environmental amendment to the Constitution would enshrine the government’s commitment to protect its citizens from environmental harm, including climate change. It would also give citizens constitutional standing to enforce those rights.

As the headline of a recent Maureen Dowd column warned, we are facing “Apocalypse Right Now.” So what better time than now to add an environmental amendment?

Franklin L. Kury Hummelstown, Pa. The writer is a retired state representative and senator and the author of “The Constitutional Question to Save the Planet: The People’s Right to a Healthy Environment.”

Many of the amendments proposed as updates to the Constitution betray a fundamental misconception of what the document is about: The Constitution is an operating manual for our governmental architecture. The focus is on the structures of government, not on social policy. Worthy as some of these recommendations may (or may not) be, a “commitment to peace” or “rights for the unborn” have no more place in the Constitution than did the 18th Amendment, on Prohibition, which was later repealed.

Steven Berkowitz New York

Some interesting ideas, but where is the proposal to repeal the Second Amendment? It was written in the era of the blunderbuss, but the number and firepower of weapons have grown exponentially since then. It’s time for a rethinking, which could best be done by federal and state legislators absent the amendment’s constraints.

Peter Parker Carmel, Calif.

Yes, the writers of the U.S. Constitution got us off to a fine start, but there is no doubt the document can be improved. It’s odd, though, that the legal scholars asked to contribute to your story about the need for an update did not suggest that we abandon the perilous Electoral College in favor of electing our president by popular vote. Americans trying to explain this complicated, potentially antidemocratic system to citizens of other countries would have better luck explaining quantum physics.

Readers interested in a better example of a national constitution may want to take a look at Rwanda’s . One may disagree with some of it, but it shows clear decisions on many of the controversial topics we wrestle with here.

Jeff Davis Akron, Ohio

I suggest an Anti-Originalism Amendment:

“No word or phrase in this Constitution or in any amendment to it shall be construed by any federal or state court as having only the meaning it was intended or understood to have when it was ratified or adopted. The Constitution, with its amendments, shall be interpreted to reflect the changing beliefs and circumstances of an evolving society.”

Ronald W. Tochterman Sacramento The writer is a retired state court judge and law professor.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Close TELL CONGRESS: Stop the biggest expansion of government surveillance in decades ADD YOUR NAME

Suggested Results

Antes de cambiar....

Esta página no está disponible en español

¿Le gustaría continuar en la página de inicio de Brennan Center en español?

al Brennan Center en inglés

al Brennan Center en español

Informed citizens are our democracy’s best defense.

We respect your privacy .

• Analysis & Opinion

Perfecting the Constitution

Are amendments the way forward for progressive reformers?

• Equal Rights Amendment

More than half a century has passed since Congress last proposed a successful amendment to the Constitution. Adopted in 1971, the 26th Amendment lowered the national voting age to 18. It was the fourth addition to the Constitution in the span of 10 years. Remarkably, the measure won the approval of the requisite 38 states in just 100 days, the fastest ratification on record. 

But then, in a pattern that has repeated itself throughout American history, the momentum for constitutional reform slowed. After the Equal Rights Amendment was thwarted in the 1970s by a demagogic campaign that presaged a sharp turn to the right in our nation’s politics, progressive reformers pulled back. Today, only a few hardy reformers see much value in cranking up the unwieldy mechanism of Article V to repair a Constitution that too often fails to meet today’s needs. The dispiriting common wisdom, subscribed to by many progressive scholars and reformers today, is that our Constitution is simply “unamendable.”

But can this be true? In today’s contentious and fractured politics, it may seem difficult to imagine forging the broad consensus needed to pass a constitutional amendment under the two-step process of Article V, which requires supermajority approval in Congress  and  the states. But as Brooklyn Law School’s Wilfred Codrington and I argue in our book,  The People’s Constitution: 200 Years, 27 Amendments, and the Promise of a More Perfect Union , this disempowering sense of futility is nothing new. Amendments have come mainly in short bursts, spurred by social movements and visionary leaders, only to be followed by decades-long dry spells, when reformers look to other avenues of reform. 

In this way, our national charter has been reformed — and its principles renewed — in four waves of change linked to some of the most turbulent times in American history, from the fight to ratify the Constitution to Reconstruction’s promise of a “second founding” to the reform boom of the Progressive Era to the 1960s’ movements for civil rights. 

As this history reveals, previous generations of Americans have made our Constitution more democratic, more inclusive, and more suited to the needs of a changing country through the mechanism of Article V.  It’s an inspiring story of progressive change. Yet today, the arena of constitutional reform is dominated by conservative activists who have launched campaigns to radically curtail the power of the federal government. Those ambitious efforts have only bolstered a sense among progressives that it’s unwise and even dangerous to tinker with the framers’ handiwork, keeping these reformers stuck on the sidelines.

On February 16, the Brennan Center will host  Constitutional Amendments: Time to Rethink?  — an academic symposium exploring the prospects for amending the Constitution in our time. The day’s discussion, led by a lineup of prominent thought leaders drawn from the fields of politics, journalism, academia, and reform advocacy, will consider whether improving the Constitution through the Article V amending process remains a vital and viable means of advancing legal change in the 21st century.

At the symposium, leading experts will examine the lessons that history offers for those interested in waging Article V amendment campaigns today, as other avenues of reform seem blocked. The discussion will also consider the benefits of investing in this largely neglected mode of legal change, including its potential to shape public sentiment around a robust, progressive vision of the Constitution in the courts, in our politics, and in the public discourse. Looking forward to this generation’s opportunity to make its mark on our national charter, participants will imagine a path forward for amendments that can effectively address problems that beset our democracy today, including proposals on equal rights for women, abolishing the Electoral College, overturning Citizens United, and limiting Supreme Court justices’ terms.

The day kicks off with keynote remarks by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the leading constitutional scholar serving in Congress today. Reflecting on the progressive activism that “built the modern Constitution,” Raskin urges reform-minded Americans to shed their fear of advancing reform through Article V.  “It’s a betrayal of our history if we don’t talk about amending the Constitution in order to create a more perfect union,” he says. “We need to be planting flags in the unfolding history of democracy. That’s what the constitutional amendment process is all about.”

Related Issues:

The People’s Constitution

The new book explores the history of constitutional amendments and reminds us who really wrote the Constitution.

Reflections on Women’s Equality Day

Representation at the ballot box — and in the halls of power — has a long way to go.

The 19th Amendment at 100

The equal rights amendment explained, is the gop warming up to the equal rights amendment, the equal rights amendment: a century in the making, informed citizens are democracy’s best defense.

Office of the Federal Register (OFR)

Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution . After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b . The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

Links to Constitutional Amendment Information in the Treasures of Congress Exhibit

• The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10 and 27)
• The 13th Amendment (Prohibiting Slavery)
• The 17th Amendment (Direct Election of Senators)
• The 19th Amendment (Granting Women the Right to Vote)

• Institutions of Democracy

What Should Be the 28th Amendment to the Constitution? These Students Have Some Ideas

Posted on January 20, 2023

The 26 th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1971 during the Vietnam War, set the national voting age at 18, so that young people who were old enough to be drafted would also have the right to vote. (Prior to this, most states set the voting age at 21.) The 27 th Amendment, ratified over a decade later, prevents Congress from giving itself a pay raise – any approved increase does not take effect until after the next congressional election.

If the United States were to have a 28 th Amendment to the Constitution, what should it be?

The question was posed last fall to hundreds of Philadelphia-area 4 th and 5 th grade students by the Rendell Center for Civics and Civic Engagement in its Citizenship Challenge essay contest. On January 12, 2023, 10 class teams of finalists gathered at the National Constitution Center on Independence Mall to present their ideas in the form of skits and songs before a trio of judges. The finals were sponsored by the Rendell Center, the Constitution Center, and the Annenberg Public Policy Center .

Among the students’ ideas were that the 28 th Amendment should:

• Guarantee that all schools are equitable, eliminating disparities in resources and opportunities between rich and poor districts (proposed by Joan Carter Williams’ 4 th grade class at E.M. Stanton Elementary School, Philadelphia);
• Provide everyone with the right to have the option of free healthcare (Monica Williams’ 5 th grade class in Radnor Elementary) or that there should be pay-what-you-can healthcare coverage for all (Tara McClusker’s 5 th grade class at St. Francis Xavier School)
• Abolish the Electoral College (Audrey Kraus and Mindy Civan’s 5 th grade class at Perelman Jewish Day School);
• Address gun violence by limiting gun possession to individuals who need them for military and hunting uses (Matthew Cummins’ 5 th grade class in Manavon Elementary School, Phoenixville).

The three judges questioned the students about their proposals. “Is the right to have health care in the Constitution itself?” former Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a cofounder of the Rendell Center, asked one group. To other students proposing to eliminate the winner-take-all approach used by most states with the Electoral College, he asked, what if there are more than two candidates and no one wins a majority of the vote? If five candidates are running and the leader has 25% of the vote, is that enough to be elected president?

Another judge, Senior U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge and Rendell Center cofounder Marjorie O. Rendell, questioned a class about its plan to limit gun ownership to the military and hunters: “So if the man on the street wants to protect himself in his home, he is not able to have a gun?” The Rendells were joined on the judging panel by retired Judge and U.S. Attorney Michael R. Stiles.

The winners are:

1 st Place: Buckingham Elementary School : Linda Monkoski’s 5 th grade class proposed electoral reform to “insure that we have fair and just elections,” including term limits for the President (two 4-year terms), Senators (two 6-year terms), House of Representatives (two 4-year terms), and Supreme Court Justices (15 years maximum, with current justices serving no more than 25 years). The class also proposed that electors in every state should be elected proportionately, matching the popular vote percentages (no more winner-take-all), and that each state will elect a bipartisan committee to review and determine fair district lines for city, state, and federal office, in order to eliminate gerrymandering. In its essay, the Buckingham class wrote: “All in all, we want our leaders to serve fair terms of service and our elections to be fair representations of the wishes of the people of this great country.”

2 nd Place: Bala Cynwyd Middle School : Ann Friedlander and Michelle Rullo’s 5th grade class proposed an amendment to protect the right to vote. The class noted that “restrictive voting legislation has denied access to voting to countless citizens and has undermined election integrity,” and voiced concern that the federal John Lewis Voting Rights Act, though passed by the House of Representatives, has failed to pass the Senate. “If both sides can’t come together to protect a basic right, then the only recourse is to have absolute protection of the right to vote with a constitutional amendment.”

3 rd Place: Queen of Angels Regional Catholic School : Sarah Galbreath and Christina Behan’s 5 th grade class proposed “a living wage amendment” ensuring that everyone is paid “the amount of money a person or family needs to survive.”

“The idea for us in forming the Rendell Center was to make good citizens,” Ed Rendell told the students at the closing ceremony. “One of the best things that’s happened in the last few years is young people stepping up and taking their rightful place as the future of the country.”

Photo credit: The Turning Page.

Recent Articles

Experiencing Extreme Weather Predicts Support for Policies to Mitigate Effects of Climate Change

Psychologist and Neuroscientist Emily Falk to Lead APPC’s New Climate Communication Division

Special Issue of Nicotine & Tobacco Research Highlights Influence of Social Media on Young People’s Tobacco Use

Handout D: United States Constitution, Amendments 1-27

Handout D: United States Constitution, Amendments 1 – 27

Amendment I (1791): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II (1791): A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III (1791): No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV (1791): The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V (1791): No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI (1791): In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII (1791): In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII (1791): Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX (1791): The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X (1791): The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XI (1798): The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Amendment XII (1804): The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Amendment XIII (1865):

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Amendment XIV (1868):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment XV (1870):

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XVI (1913): The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

Amendment XVII (1913): The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Amendment XVIII (1919):

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Amendment XIX (1920): The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XX (1933):

Section 1 . The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3rd day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission.

Amendment XXI (1933):

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Amendment XXII (1951):

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

Amendment XXIII (1961):

Section 1. The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Amendment XXIV (1964):

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Amendment XXV (1967):

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Amendment XXVI (1971):

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXVII (1992): No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Contact: ✉️ [email protected] ☎️ (803) 302-3545

List of the 27 amendments, resources related to “list of the 27 amendments”:.

• Overview of Bill of Rights
• When was the Bill of Rights ratified?
• Is the Bill of Rights part of the constitution?
• Free PDF of the Bill of Rights
• What Is The Constitutional Amendment Process?

Table of Contents

The following is a list of the 27 constitutional amendments. Twenty-five of these constitutional amendments are currently active. The two amendments of the constitution that are inactive are the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) and the 21st Amendment (Repeal of Prohibition).

You can also  download a PDF of the 27 Amendments  if you wish to.

The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution

What are the first 10 amendments called?

The  first 10 of these amendments  are known as the Bill of Rights and relate to personal and individual rights. The Bill of Rights was ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791.

Over 11,000 additional constitutional amendments have been proposed, with approximately 200 proposed for the  amendment process  a year. For a proposed constitutional amendment to be passed is a very complicated process.

What Are the First 27 Amendments of the Constitution?

The 1st amendment.

The  1st Amendment  is about  Freedom of speech . The notion that the government will not interfere with the ability of the people, the press, or religious groups to express their views or to protest in favor of them.

It starts with:

Congress shall make no law…

The 2nd Amendment

The  2nd Amendment  is about the right to bear arms. In the modern world, the continued right to own firearms and protect property according to the law.

The 3rd Amendment

The  3rd Amendment  is a law stating that citizens do not have to house soldiers in wartime or peacetime if they do not consent to do so.

The 4th Amendment

The  4th Amendment  is about the right of the people of the United States to feel secure in their homes and possessions without fear of “unreasonable searches and seizures.” This relates to modern law concerning the need for a warrant to search property.

The 5th Amendment

The  5th Amendment  is commonly known as the double jeopardy law. Those tried and acquitted for a crime cannot be tried again for that same crime. Also, the accused cannot be asked to be a witness against themselves.

The 6th Amendment

The  6th Amendment  is about the right of all citizens of the United States to a speedy and fair public trial. This also means an impartial jury and the right to a defense counsel and witnesses in their favor.

It also infers the concept of the assumption of innocence until proven guilty .

The 7th Amendment

The  7th Amendment  gives the right for any claimant to take a matter to court and trial by jury when the value in question exceeds $20.

The 8th Amendment

The  8th Amendment  is a ban on extreme punishments for crimes, focusing on those that are “cruel and unusual” and on excessive fines or bail.

Get Smarter on US News, History, and the Constitution

Join the thousands of fellow patriots who rely on our 5-minute newsletter to stay informed on the key events and trends that shaped our nation's past and continue to shape its present.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

The 9th Amendment

The  9th Amendment  clarifies that United States citizens have far more rights than those currently listed and that their absence doesn’t diminish their importance.

The 10th Amendment

The  10th Amendment  attempts to separate federal and state law, where the federal government only has the powers assigned to it via the United States Constitution. The states have power over everything else.

The 11th Amendment

The  11th Amendment is the notion that the right for citizens to sue a state only applies to residents in that state. In other words, Texans can’t sue the State of New Mexico. It was ratified on February 7, 1795 .

The 12th Amendment

The  12th Amendment  is a complex amendment that lays out all the laws for how Presidents and Vice Presidents progress through the nomination and election process. It goes into who is allowed to vote and qualified electors and delegates. Also, the  requirements for becoming president . It was ratified on June 15, 1804.

The 13th Amendment

The  13th Amendment is about the abolition of slavery. The promise that slavery, or “involuntary servitude,” would exist no longer within the United States. The exception here is on the conviction of a crime. This amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865 .

The 14th Amendment

The  14th Amendment is the assertion that all those born or naturalized within the United States are citizens of the United States. Furthermore, the promise that no state will enforce any law that will damage these privileges in any way. This is also known as the Equal Protection Clause and was ratified on July 9, 1868 .

The 15th Amendment

The  15th Amendment stipulates that any citizen of the United States has the right to vote, regardless of their race and color of their skin. This constitutional amendment also mentions those with a “previous condition of servitude,” which grants the right to former slaves. It was ratified on February 3, 1870 .

The 16th Amendment

The  16th Amendment is a law that allowed Congress to start collecting income tax, with the promise that this would not be based on the state’s population. It was ratified on February 3, 1913.

The 17th Amendment

The  17th Amendment  lays out the terms for  electing senators . This gave power to the people of the US to choose their representatives and laid out the terms of office. The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified on April 8, 1913 .

The 18th Amendment

The  Eighteenth Amendment  is also known as the Prohibition Law. This prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of “intoxicating liquors.” This essentially meant a ban on alcohol and led to the  Prohibition Era of bootleg alcohol sales and consumption. The 18th Amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919 but subsequently repealed by the 21st Amendment.

The 19th Amendment

The  19th Amendment is about the right for any citizen of the United States to vote, regardless of their biological sex. Essentially, this was the moment women joined male citizens and were granted the right to vote in the United States. This amendment was ratified on August 18, 1920.

The 20th Amendment

The 21st amendment.

The  21st Amendment is the motion to repeal the 18th Amendment, the Prohibition Law, and allow for the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol. It was ratified on December 5, 1933 due to the inability to enforce the law. Instead, individual states gained the right to police alcohol-related laws themselves.

The 22nd Amendment

The  22nd Amendment is the notion that no president should be eligible for election into office for more than two terms. Furthermore, anyone promoted to president for two years or more of a term cannot be elected for more than one additional term. The amendment was proposed in 1947, following FDR’s term from 1933 to 1945, and ratified on February 27, 1951.

The 23rd Amendment

The  23rd Amendment  ensures that Washington, D.C. had electors in the  Electoral College , but only as many as the state with the lowest number. This would ensure that voters there had better representation in future elections. The amendment was ratified on March 29, 1961.

The 24th Amendment

The 25th amendment, the 26th amendment, the 27th amendment, 27 amendments of the constitution.

The above are  27 amendments that have become part of the United States Constitution . There are approximately 10,000 amendments that have been rejected and never ratified.

When Was Each of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution Ratified?

The ratification dates for each of the 27 Amendments to the United States Constitution are as follows:

• First 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights) – December 15, 1791
• 11th Amendment – February 7, 1795
• 12th Amendment – June 15, 1804
• 13th Amendment – December 6, 1865
• 14th Amendment – July 9, 1868
• 15th Amendment – February 3, 1870
• 16th Amendment – February 3, 1913
• 17th Amendment – April 8, 1913
• 18th Amendment – January 16, 1919
• 19th Amendment – August 18, 1920
• 20th Amendment – January 23, 1933
• 21st Amendment – December 5, 1933
• 22nd Amendment – February 27, 1951
• 23rd Amendment – March 29, 1961
• 24th Amendment – January 23, 1964
• 25th Amendment – February 10, 1967
• 26th Amendment – July 1, 1971
• 27th Amendment – May 7, 1992

Constitutional Amendments Quiz

If you would like to download a PDF with our quiz, then please go to:

Download the quiz PDF

Alternatively, you can take our online quiz here:

Constitutional Amendments

Edward savey, 96 responses.

Where in the Constitution does it give a right to impeach a President after he has left the office of President.

He was impeached on January 13, 2021 which was before he left office January 20,2021. The trial came after that, but he was constitutionally impeached twice.

Was constitutionally “Acquitted” both times which cancels out both impeachments

Impeachment is permanent. He may be acquitted by the Senate, but he is still Impeached. If you remember in the past, Bill Clinton was impeached, but then acquitted by the Senate. He is still to this day Impeached. The House of Representatives has sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

His impeachments were all based on lies!

It’s the same as if you are accused of a crime and found not guilty. Your not guilty, but records will always show you were accused, but found not guilty.

That is incorrect, the Impeachment has to be ratified or denied by the Senate before the Impeachment becomes Official. When the Senate votes against or denies the Impeachment by the House of Representatives, it essentially becomes null and void.

It doesn’t “cancel” the impeachments. An impeachment, which is a political process, is the equivalent to an indictment in the criminal process. Both merely mean that the responsible body, HOR or Grand Jury, found enough evidence in their opinion to warrant a trial. An indictment still remains on the record, as does an impeachment, even if the charged party is aquitted.

You can indict a piece of toast. Means nothing without consequences.

There’s no way he could try to run for president if he had been impeached. An impeachment is not just an accusation but also a trial.

No, an impeachment is simply as accusation. Even if the accusation fails it was still made.

No, it does not!

Yas!!! I dont understand why they like to think he was in fact Impeached, when he wasnt. He was acquitted both times. Therefore never impeached.

It did not pass so he was not taken out of office. They were all Democrats run hate. Just like they hate the Republicans they want to make us a one party system which is communism. The impeachment did not pass the congress. GEES

Carol: Can’t believe that anyone believes such nonsense. First, trump was impeached for attempting to blackmail Ukraine by withholding miliary aid attempting to block a House Investigaton. Then he was impeached for urging tourist to enter the Capitol with guns, stars and bars flags and urging for the hanging of the VP. Good Christians one and all. Every woman ought to have been outraged that trump bragged about grabbing women by their private parts because they like it. Sex with whores and porn stars is unacceptable, expect to ultra-right wing voters.

Another Dem stone thrower! Wow.

Really a one party system just more fancy definition of a dictatorship, but communist countries are dictatorships so your point still stands.

Trump was one of the best presidente América ever had.

He is somewhat arrogant, had absolutely 0% of any sort/kind of political background, a social media keyboard bully, rich RICH, uptight 1% and loved pornstars ######… BUT.!!! That man did an excellent job and upheld his duty of the united States president like a God damn trooper… Good job MR. President Trump…..!!!!

He did nothing as a President of the United States of America. He played golf for one fourth of the time being in the White House. He played like a little baby with our Nation’s Top Secret information. He played movie star as he met with commie leaders and murderers. He acted and still does about people whom he disliked or confronted him making sure those who did lives were destroyed by his actions. All that and a draft dodger. The poor little baby couldn’t even represent the Country in a uniform. What a coward.

your opinion not fact. hé did far more damagethan good.

LIE’S. He was not the best president America ever had, That honor should go to Barack Obama, The First Afro-Amercian Man to be president. and he did a VERY good job. Unlike old Donald ‘Rump’ who did nothing but lie, cheat, and bribe people into liking him!

Yeah, that shows in his current situation, he’s the prime candidate for prison because of his criminal behavior and mindset. He caused division among the people of this country and his ignorance brought about chaos and corruption and turned people into idiots and vile followers of white nationalist ideology which correlates with hate and white supremacy. His corruption is clear to be seen and witnessed by the world and so are his elite dedicated followers who are just as criminal as he is that’s why they follow a lunatic who was nothing more than a game show host. His fraudulent activities and his corruptness are finally exposing him for everything he is and everything he will be.

NO, he was only impeached by the House, not the Senate

For crimes unproven nearly 2 years later.

Acquitted two times

HE WAS NEVER CHARGED, SO HE WAS NOT IMPEACHED.

Being “charged” and being impeached are two entirely different things. It would be really helpful for you to take a class on how the United States Government is run per the Constitution.

It’s in the book of Nancy Piglosi!

Article 1, Section 2, Item 5: of the Constitution states, “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” In the absence of any limitation set there, or elsewhere in the Constitution that leaves the decision of who when and where to impeach solely in the hands of the House of Representatives. So the more relevant question should be “Where in the Constitution is a former president exempted from impeachment?”

He was still in office. And it was a more to ensure that 45 couldn’t be seated again.

Is there ANY alternative to remove a sitting president (for treason as an example) other than through Congress? Can US Citizens remove a sitting president? I don’t think the framers of our constitution considered the depth of corruption in our government when they created the article for impeachment by Congress. When there is massive corruption within both parties and neither side will impeach a sitting president for treason (or some other valid reason for impeachment), the US citizens are left helpless.

I don’t believe framers considered the level of corruption as you describe but they hadn’t fully considered the depth (or true possibility?) of a two party system and the polarity that would ensue.

Somewhat correct… Thomas Jefferson warned us against a two party system. Yet here we are… sad state of affairs our nation is in.

John Adam’s also warned against the two party system…

Yes, We the People should be able to remove a sitting president via the Convention of States.

I agree, we should be able to remove. Read the President’s Oath of Office, he has violated it.

It’s called the 2nd amendment. The right to protect ourselves against tyrannical governments (both foreign and domestic)

Joe Biden would already be in prison for treason just because of the open border and engraved invitations. This is ludicrous over 140 countries have had people literally walk in. They have lost track of most. We have no idea who is here from the Got Away Group. Nearly a million of those and I am sure most are not here for asylum.

Our CONSTITUTION is not being followed WE THE PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING HEARD. We need to reread why do we have LIFE LONG CONGRESS PEOPLE WHEN THEY WERE ONLY 6 YEAR????

Unfortunately because the people keep buying into the marketing of political campaigns and keep reelecting the same people. In the absence of term limitations all we have is our vote. (For now)

We don’t need congress to sign a law for term limits. The states can do it without their support. Check it out. More and more people have signed the petition and many states have agreed to vote for them. Term limits are vital to our Republic

that is what I keep saying, you hear about imposing term limits on these folks, but why there already there in the Constitution!!!

The constitutional laws are greatly ignored by the left when is interferes with their agenda. The people need to vote for limits for the congress, house, and the senate as it is for the president. Also the constitutional laws need to be taught to ALL law enforcement officers who swear an oath to the constitution and have no idea how many and what the amendments intel.

I agree with your statement. I do think that police don’t understand all the individual rights that people have and because of that police use their pride and say that we are the ones who enforce the law so we know the law more than you do even though lawyers are the people who go to law school in order to become a lawyer. Now I do think that some police legitimately do know most of the rights people, but that is honestly very few.

They should be required to memorize the US constitution. They take an oath and that oath is a major part of job description. My opinion 80% violate their oaths regularly.

WHY ARE WE NOT BEING HEARD!!!!!!! WE R THE PEOPLE!!!!!

All of you are super annoying. People on both sides always result to screaming. I’m just here to study for a government exam and this is what I see. It’s kind of sad.

If worrying about your studies are more important than what’s going on in America, that’s what’s sad. Do you realize our children are being endoctrinated to hate America, the flag, & told they’re either racist or victims. Do you know that some teachers believe that children, as young as 5 years old, are to be taught about transgenderism, sexual gratification, & other subjects that are totally inappropriate? For your children’s & grandchildren’s sake, wake up to the real threat & have your voice heard. There’s no screaming here, just deep concerns.

lemme guess, trump 2024?

Damn Right! Mr. Comrade.

Who?there is a liar out there that sometimes says he’s trump,but trump what?

So? Let me guess Joe Bite me 2020?

We have the right to yell..no one is hearing us n we are fed up! We are WE THE PEOPLE.. theses are our rights that are being destroyed. We need to rise up n fight go to the White House..its our right to fight .people fight for all the wrong things.We need to urge to get out n vote , regardless. .you are right in what you said

Don’t forget to mention the fact that children as young as five are given gender transition therapy so that same five-year-old can go through a surgery that permanently damages their bodies and the fact that most transgenders have about the same suicide rate as schizophrenics.

As a teenager in high school, your intent sounds good, but I can’t agree with all of your reasoning. What is going on in our country and the concerns we have for it are definitely something we should worry about, but we can’t take part in any change until we are of age and TAUGHT what goes on. We can not and will not get involved in things we know nothing about.

As for hating America and the flag, that is not something we are forced or taught to believe. We do that from what we learn and know about our government. With that being said, I disagree with many things that go on, however I would never say I hate America or the flag. Many people would agree with me on that. Those who bring disrespect to the flag and find vandalizing statues and other historic things as a way to express their disagreement can be under that category but not every child out there who does not like our laws has to be considered a child who hates America.

As for learning about transgenderism, there is no crime in teaching about that at a young age UNLESS it is sexualized to little kids. Knowing its okay to be yourself is no crime. If a young boy feels feminine and wants to be a girl, without being told or pressured that they have to be, someone wanting to explain what being transgender is and that its okay wants to tell him that, they should. And as most kids ask about sex, if they do then they can get the answer, like most parents give. Beings transgender or homosexual is not about sexual things but about it being okay to be you. Accepting that humans will love who they want and be who they want. Yet, you can’t accept that idea and try to say we can’t believe anything outside of what we are taught?

We are open minded to things that are accepting and fair to everyone, that is what we are taught. And if our country is not willing to make that happen and allow equality and fairness to all people, why would we like it? Love and acceptance and equality is all we want.

LETS GO MOM!!! lol you have the best comment here

Best comment by far

The 16th & 17th Amendments were not properly ratified by Individual State’s Congress and, therefore, invalid.

because you can be re-elected, diana.

MTG can be ousted on the basis of joining the Jan. 6 insurrection using the 14th amendment. Perhaps jailed or told to leave the USA for North Korea….

That only applied to the war between the states, falsely called a civil war by some uninformed people, but not one (a civil war iscone where two or more factions fight over conyrol of a govenment. Since the suth never tried to overthrow the union government, itcwas not a civil war.

The 1/6 incident was not an attempt to overhrow the government. It was a legal, constitutional attempt to ensure that only legitimate votes for president were counted.

Since no attemted insjrrection, or actual insurrection ny any Trump supporters occurred on 1/6, Ms greene cannot be ousted from Congress, neither can Trump, or any other elected Republican officialwho was in Washington that day, except for all members of the demonkkkrat party, who conspired to unseat Trump in obama’s operation crossfire hurricane “by any mrans necessary” starting in december 2016

I do believe MTG was in Congress with the rest of the house reps. Only a small fraction of the people at the Capitol that day actually went inside. I’d bet at least 99% of the people stayed outside the building and most peacefully assembled, others did get very loud at times. No reason to try to blame anything her or President Trump. The speech we all heard was no different than speeches he gave at all his other rallys.

I wish the constitution was clearer on treason because trying to impeach a president with knowingly with false evidence is a coup and that’s treason no brainer

I do agree, especially if you consider that the constitution was written during the late 1700’s which nowadays most people would be confused about what some of this people are saying.

The constitution is very clear on the definition of treason against the United States. Article 3, section 3 states: “Treason against the United States shall consist only of waging war against the United States, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort….”

My history teacher has lied to me… she said the fifth was the right to not have to say anything say you got pulled over you didn’t have to say anything..

What do you think “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” means? It’s where our “Miranda rights” come from. “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” You have the right to remain silent, per the fifth amendment.

Is anyone else just kinda sad looking at this? For most laws to made, this stuff actually has to be a problem.

Reversing Roe vs Wade is wrong. No government should tell a woman what she can do with her body. If it happens, then all males 18 yrs and older should have mandatory vasectomies!

Killing American citizens for convenience sake is wrong. The babies being brutally murdered are people; they are my neighbors, and no less American than you or me. Murder is not health care.

An unborn fetus is not an American Citizen lol… Brutally murdered is what happened to the 11 year old in Texas because we’d rather give rights to guns than our woman. Those children were your neighbors.

if you are pro life or not. I have worked in Health care seen addicted infants mother nor dad want or care. If you are pro life and against Government supporting these children with tax dollars. If you are Pro life you may want to line up in the nic unit in every hospital and be willing to raise a child that may never eat, speak, grow or learn .. I have seen these children and they suffer after birth . The mother nor father want to raise a child that needs 24 hour care and will never be able to care for themselves. This is just my opinion. I have held babies going through with drawl while their mom is discharged from hospital. When they return most went and got a “fix” If you are willing to support all these child then you really are pro life if not , you do not have enough information on what goes on in this epidemic.. My OPINION

We don’t give guns rights, we give people to have guns.

“An unborn fetus is not an American citizen lol”? Wrong!! An unborn fetus is a developing, breathing and living human being! We know this because we can see the unborn baby on a sonogram and hear a heart beat during the first trimester of pregnancy! An unborn fetus must be considered a citizen with rights (by law/courts) or people wouldn’t be convicted and receive 2 prison sentences for murders of a pregnant female and her unborn baby!

There is no constitutional right to murder your baby. You can still do it. It is just up to the states now. What’s wrong with being responsible and using birth control or maybe just not having sex.

That’s because of the 10th Amendment. The separation of federal and state government. Federal government only has the power afforded it by the constitution. Everything else is up to the states. That’s what the Supreme Court decided. Abortion should have never been governed by the federal government as it is not a constitutional right. It belongs to the power of the states.

No government is telling a woman what to do now that it’s been overturned SCOTUS has put the power back in the people’s hands in each State. Which is a democratic process don’t you agree.

Now that is a stupid statement, all women should then have hysterectomy’s???

No overturning Roe vs Wade just means abortion laws are now up to the states to decide if its legal or not, or if its legal within certain aspects like rape or incest. And forcing men 18 or older to have a vasectomy is just unnecessary and absolutely stupid, cause you said is basically saying that the government has control over a man’s reproductive system.

If the unborn baby’s mother is an American citizen, any babies she carries are American citizens before birth. If she is not an American citizen, and she gives birth on US soil, the newborn is a US citizen,but the mother is not.

But when she starts messing around with the body inside her that is wrong. She is just carting that baby but it does not give her the right to kill it because she was to stupid to use birth control or say no to the guy. Women should not resort to abortion for birth control. Why don’t you give the baby a chance and let a women have the baby that cannot conceive. Don’t kill the baby cause you are to selfish to save it and adopt it out.

To give more clarity to these amendments, it would be more informative if you would include the year each one was ratifiedratified.

Everything said here is of no import. We are NOT living under a legitimate government. Once we restore a legitimate government, then we can have discussions about any and all situations. Until that time, we have as much legal obligation to any regulations, new laws, SCOTUS rulings and the like as we do to such rulings of the Vietnamese government. The Vietnamese Government doesn’t have legal jurisdiction over the people of the USA, and neither does this current crop of thieves, traitors, and political operatives who have hijacked our system. They do NOT have proper legal standing. Just because you are sneaky, lying, political operatives doesn’t mean you get to be the President and Speaker and such, regardless of what the manipulated voting system says. Time to pull the plug on these enemies of the state…this vipers nest of evil. This was an attack on the United States of America. This was an act of war. This rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic as it is sinking can keep people busy, but it isn’t of import. As this was an act of war and an attack on the sovereignity of the United States of America, this is a job for the military. Once the military has cleansed the Augean Stables of the horseshit, then we can carry out the Nuremburg 2.0 trials. After all, these people are responsible for every covid death, every vaccine death or disability, every fentanyl OD death, every death of Americans that did NOT receive help because our funds went elsewhere, foreign nations ( for the kickbacks), bribes etc. Those trillions ( TRILLIONS!!! mind you) of dollars could have paved a mile or 2 of distressed roadway, repaired at least 1 or 2 bridges, built a school or 2 in distreesed neighborhoods…. well you get the picture. Where did 5 or 6 TRILLION dollars go? My GOD thats a LOT of money….and where is it? We have been robbed blind in addition to everything else. We must confiscate 100% of the estates of these criminals as well as hang them.

Why is the 12th amendment not followed. Seems to me the practice laid out of a distinct ballot from president for vice president would give the people more control over who is in office. Currently, we arent really picking the VP they are apointed by the presidential candidate during the election campaign.

The main point of the 12th amendment was to get rid of the practice of second place candidate was the VP. Though nowadays I’m pretty sure that VP is decided alone with the president.

The USA is a broken country. An awesome constitution yet ruled by maritime law. That’s messed up. The biggest violations of the constitution come from the enforcement agency’s sworn to uphold it. Even sicker. Corrupt 3 letter agencies and the largest drug, weapons and human trafficking is done by them. Open boarders are for this purpose. Insider trading and government contracts given to friends with huge back handed contributions. The people need to take their country back sooner rather than later and hold all of these people accountable on a public stage for the entire world to see. Just my opinion.

Many of your comments represent people that are unhappy and do not live by the Bible. But more importantly, the pot is calling the kettle black. There are many reasons given as to why things are the way they are, but one important reason is never mentioned even though it is in the minds of many of you. You want to take America back to the 1800s or earlier. NOT going to happen.

Instead of trying to improve things, you are making it much worse than it should be. The only dictatorship is from the right wing and all these unqualifed so-called political persons from both sides.

Where in the constitution does it say that All elected officials have to abide by the constitutional laws as does a common citizen? Why are not our elected representatives adhere to the laws like us citizens do? Are they above the law? They don’t contribute to the social security system. They don’t get Medicare. They get their salaries for the rest of their lives! And you’re telling me they get the same treatment like the rest of us?

All this talk about a president who, INFACT did nothing for his country but promote racism and violence, WHILE he was in office. (By the way, the person I’m talking about is Donald Trump) and that I’m glad he was impeached. At least he did cause FURTHER DAMAGE to our great country. and anyone who says differently must be a Trump lover and if you think that he will run for the 2024 election… you must be pretty dumb.

Need to march on Washington and demand resignation of all the politicians because they are voted in by the people but they are not for the people they lie to get in office and do nothing they promised for the people they sell out to the corporations to screw the American people that is why there is so much poverty the rich get richer while the poorer get poorer Only way to show who’s crooked make it public all their tax information yearly income for politicians is not millions. Majority goes in don’t have a pot to piss in but by the first year they are multi millionaires They are sell outs to corporations to screw their own people over for the money. While us disabled veterans have to fight for what little we get . It’s a crying shame we stood for this country in time of need to just get shit on and medical discharged and live month to month and worry if we are going to be able to make the bills because they tell you you will be taken care of but it’s a lie and have to fight to get anything because they won’t to cut and take away what they promised we did there dirty work now that we got injured we are no use just discard us like trash If it wasn’t for us they wouldn’t have a job because none of them could endure and do what we did You want justice indict and convict all of them crooked politicians and seize their assets and put on the deficit because it was obtained illegally. That’s justice

Folks, the fact that you can express your opinions is the reason we are privileged to live in the US. The bottom line– if you want to continue using these forums and your Bill of Rights, democracy needs to be respected and protected.

Re this “individual states gained the right to police alcohol-related laws themselves.” in the description of the 21st Amendment, is “gained the right” correct? I’m no Constitutional scholar but I don’t recall the Constitution reserving that right to the Federal Government. But I DO remember the Constitution saying that all powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government remain the purview of the States.

So, where does the wording “gained the right” come from?

I just came onto the site to review the Constitution. I never expected the banter and bashing. I see the division among us. I am entitled to my opinion but wont share my views other than to say to those who sacrificed for this country, we owe you a huge debt and I agree with your sentiments. You are appreciated.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

What Rights do Americans Have Under the Constitution?

Who can propose an amendment to the constitution, free printable us bill of rights pdf, how many amendments does the constitution have, please enter your email address to be updated of new content:.

© 2023 US Constitution All rights reserved

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

I Served on the Florida Supreme Court. What the New Majority Just Did Is Indefensible.

On April 1, the Florida Supreme Court, in a 6–1 ruling, overturned decades of decisions beginning in 1989 that recognized a woman’s right to choose—that is, whether to have an abortion—up to the time of viability.

Anchored in Florida’s own constitutional right to privacy, this critical individual right to abortion had been repeatedly affirmed by the state Supreme Court, which consistently struck down conflicting laws passed by the Legislature.

As explained first in 1989:

Florida’s privacy provision is clearly implicated in a woman’s decision of whether or not to continue her pregnancy. We can conceive of few more personal or private decisions concerning one’s body in the course of a lifetime.

Tellingly, the justices at the time acknowledged that their decision was based not only on U.S. Supreme Court precedent but also on Florida’s own privacy amendment.

I served on the Supreme Court of Florida beginning in 1998 and retired, based on our mandatory retirement requirement, a little more than two decades later. Whether Florida’s Constitution provided a right to privacy that encompassed abortion was never questioned, even by those who would have been deemed the most conservative justices—almost all white men back in 1989!

And strikingly, one of the conservative justices at that time stated: “If the United States Supreme Court were to subsequently recede from Roe v. Wade , this would not diminish the abortion rights now provided by the privacy amendment of the Florida Constitution.” Wow!

In 2017 I authored an opinion holding unconstitutional an additional 24-hour waiting period after a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy. Pointing out that other medical procedures did not have such requirements, the majority opinion noted, “Women may take as long as they need to make this deeply personal decision,” adding that the additional 24 hours stipulated that the patient make a second, medically unnecessary trip, incurring additional costs and delays. The court applied what is known in constitutional law as a “strict scrutiny” test for fundamental rights.

Interestingly, Justice Charles Canady, who is still on the Florida Supreme Court and who participated in the evisceration of Florida’s privacy amendment last week, did not challenge the central point that abortion is included in an individual’s right to privacy. He dissented, not on substantive grounds but on technical grounds.

So what can explain this 180-degree turn by the current Florida Supreme Court? If I said “politics,” that answer would be insufficient, overly simplistic. Unfortunately, with this court, precedent is precedent until it is not. Perhaps each of the six justices is individually, morally or religiously, opposed to abortion.

Yet, all the same, by a 4–3 majority, the justices—three of whom participated in overturning precedent—voted to allow the proposed constitutional amendment on abortion to be placed on the November ballot. (The dissenters: the three female members of the Supreme Court.) That proposed constitutional amendment:

Amendment to Limit Government Interference With Abortion: No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion. 

For the proposed amendment to pass and become enshrined in the state constitution, 60 percent of Florida voters must vote yes.

In approving the amendment to be placed on the ballot at the same time that it upheld Florida’s abortion bans, the court angered those who support a woman’s right to choose as well as those who are opposed to abortion. Most likely the latter groups embrace the notion that fetuses are human beings and have rights that deserve to be protected. Indeed, Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, during oral argument on the abortion amendment case, queried the state attorney general on precisely that issue, asking if the constitutional language that defends the rights of all natural persons extends to an unborn child at any stage of pregnancy.

In fact, and most troubling, it was the three recently elevated Gov. Ron DeSantis appointees—all women—who expressed their views that the voters should not be allowed to vote on the amendment because it could affect the rights of the unborn child. Justice Jamie Grosshans, joined by Justice Meredith Sasso, expressed that the amendment was defective because it failed to disclose the potential effect on the rights of the unborn child. Justice Renatha Francis was even more direct, writing in her dissent:

The exercise of a “right” to an abortion literally results in a devastating infringement on the right of another person: the right to live. And our Florida Constitution recognizes that “life” is a “basic right” for “[a]ll natural persons.” One must recognize the unborn’s competing right to life and the State’s moral duty to protect that life.

In other words, the three dissenting justices would recognize that fetuses are included in who is a “natural person” under Florida’s Constitution.

What should be top of mind days after the dueling decisions? Grave concern for the women of our state who will be in limbo because, following the court’s ruling, a six-week abortion ban—at a time before many women even know they are pregnant—will be allowed to go into effect. We know that these restrictions will disproportionately affect low-income women and those who live in rural communities.

But interestingly, there is a provision in the six-week abortion ban statute that allows for an abortion before viability in cases of medical necessity: if two physicians certify that the pregnant patient is at risk of death or that the “fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality.”

The challenge will be finding physicians willing to put their professional reputations on the line in a state bent on cruelly impeding access to needed medical care when it comes to abortion.

Yet, this is the time that individuals and organizations dedicated to women’s health, as well as like-minded politicians, will be crucial in coordinating efforts to ensure that abortions, when needed, are performed safely and without delay. This is the time to celebrate and support organizations, such as Planned Parenthood and Emergency Medical Assistance , as well as our own RBG Fund , which provides patients necessary resources and information. Floridians should also take full advantage of the Repro Legal Helpline .

We all have a role in this—women and men alike. Let’s get out, speak out, shout out, coordinate our efforts, and, most importantly, vote . Working together, we can make a difference.

Schneier on Security

Using ai-generated legislative amendments as a delaying technique.

Canadian legislators proposed 19,600 amendments —almost certainly AI-generated—to a bill in an attempt to delay its adoption.

I wrote about many different legislative delaying tactics in A Hacker’s Mind , but this is a new one.

Tags: A Hacker's Mind , artificial intelligence , laws , LLM , noncomputer hacks

Posted on April 17, 2024 at 7:08 AM • 19 Comments

echo • April 17, 2024 8:22 AM

Ruth Ben-Ghiat has written in her books on fascism that the far right have always been quick to embrace shiny innovations. The Nazi’s did it. Golden Dawn in Italy did it. The murkey world of Londonstan (which includes but is not limited to Cambridge Analytica) did it. No surprise I suppose that the right wing are leaping on the AI choo-choo train to escalate legislation wrecking.

Energy Minister Jonathan Wilkinson says the bill ensures government accountability and engagement with the people who will be most affected as the world shifts away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy sources. It requires five-year action plans, regular reporting and the inclusion of labour and Indigenous leaders in discussions. The Liberals contend their bill isn’t meant to kill energy jobs but rather to lay out a way to create more of them in the renewable energy sphere.

This seems reasonable to me. It adds to my line of thought that the right wing are a glorifed death cult addicted to cruelty. Pierre Poilievre’s profile reads like an identikit Tory. No surprise there either.

Valerio • April 17, 2024 8:30 AM

I really don’t think it needs an AI to be done (although it is the topic of the moment). To give an example in September 2015 in the Senate of the Italian Republic 82 million amendments to a certain law were submitted by a single senator who candidly admitted that he had generated them with an unspecified algorithm that acted on punctuation, grammar rules and synonyms.

Winter • April 17, 2024 8:34 AM

Golden Dawn in Italy did it.

Golden Dawn was a Greek party.

echo • April 17, 2024 9:18 AM

Oops. That was embarrassing. I want to crawl into a hole for a week.

Funz • April 17, 2024 10:04 AM

It was Lega Nord party IIRC.

Clive Robinson • April 17, 2024 10:17 AM

@ Bruce, ALL,

Re : When GIGO sings along, the AI way.

“Canadian legislators proposed 19,600 amendments—almost certainly AI-generated—to a bill in an attempt to delay its adoption. “

This is an assumed “asymmetric attack” that only works because it carries no obvious penalties for the attackers in their “Greater Goal Game”(GGG).

The AI is given “Garbage In”(GI) via it’s corpus and is asked to produce “Garbage Out”(GO) via it’s “Stochastic Parrot”(SP).

Now the question arises as to penalties to stop it and non obvious penalties.

One of the non obvious penalties is that the GO of the SP is in effect generated by some filtered variation of the toss of a coin at some semantic level. As such it could produce amendments that go either way. That is for or against the attackers.

So unless they read the amendments thoroughly before submitting them, there is some chance they could end up shooting themselves in the foot. Or more correctly as Shakespeare once noted,

“Hoist by their own petard”.

But this sort of GGG can work for either side of the house, and eventually one or both sides will tire of it and thus try to legislate it out.

The problem is of course double,

1, Overly broad scope. 2, Unintentional consequences.

To see this imagine a penalty system based on how many amendments you make that get struck down. You cross a threshold and your “rate” of amendment proposals is cut…

The defenders could pre table contentious or provocative legislation to make you use up your amendment proposing rate.

There is no easy way to stop AI GICO being used as a tactical legislative battle field, the law of unintended consequences will always be “sitting on the bench” waiting to unexpectedly come into play.

Zaphod • April 17, 2024 12:20 PM

How about the person tabling the amendments has to, as a prior requirement, have read all of them out aloud to an elected representative of the Bill. With the caveat that this cannot delay the passage of the bill.

Probably more caveats required but I think I’ve got the gist.

lurker • April 17, 2024 2:38 PM

And I would run the amendments through an AI to see how many could be thrown out on technicalities. Maybe they did this anyway. The article says their house committe whittled the 18,000 down to 200 in a month, and the Speaker has joined in with human cunning to bundle them for voting, so where’s the beef?

K.S. • April 17, 2024 2:48 PM

Goodwin discussion in a first post.

vas pup • April 17, 2024 3:10 PM

On AI: As anxiety surges during war, Israeli GenAI platform can ease psychiatrists’ workload

h ttps://www.timesofisrael.com/as-anxiety-surges-during-war-israeli-genai- platform-can-ease-psychiatrists-workload/

“With the number of Israelis feeling anxious from the ongoing war soaring, a new generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) platform offers the possibility of quicker and more effective mental health screening.

The platform, called LIV, acts as a psychiatric triage system. It gives a person “someone” to converse with about their feelings and concerns. At the same time, LIV helps streamline a physician’s workload by generating possible diagnoses and treatment recommendations.

While the doctor creates the actual clinical diagnosis and treatment plan, LIV serves as a support system for making clinical decisions based on its “conversations” with patients.

This reporter tried LIV and found it to be almost akin to having an open-ended, heart-to-heart conversation with a real person. Like a psychiatrist, the platform knows how to take the conversation gently forward with the right questions to arrive at a possible diagnosis.

LIV and this reporter were in conversation for nearly half an hour about the war’s effects, including the April 14 attack by Iran on Israel. LIV was constantly reflecting back what this reporter expressed and felt, seemingly identifying with it. This made it easy and safe to open up to “her.”

LIV was presented in March at HIMSS, the world’s largest digital medicine conference. It operates using LLM, a type of AI program trained on huge data sets and built on machine learning that can recognize and generate text.

It also uses information from DSM-5, a manual of mental disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association. As LIV is used by more and more people, it fine-tunes itself to be even more sophisticated and accurate.

“Some people in the clinical study are spending 60 minutes talking with LIV instead of the average 30

because they feel very comfortable to elaborate because they feel that no one is judging them. Some mention how they find LIV more empathic than a real therapist,” Shtein said.

“However, I would want to know whether the platform will be affordable and

whether security measures are in place so that unauthorized people would not be able to get a hold of patients’ personal and medical information,” Kohn said.

LIV is not a standalone application that someone can simply download on their phone.

“Our clients are not the individual patients. Our clients are hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and the IDF — which we are in the process of setting up a trial with now,” she said.

When LIV is acquired by one of these clients, the patient will only be able to access it through the secured cloud-based interface that the client uses to communicate with its registered patients. This is almost always through a two-factor authentication process.

The fact that LIV “lives” at a hospital or HMO is critical for the platform to work properly

when a person shares that they want to hurt themselves or others, or exhibits suicidal ideation. If this happens, LIV shuts down and immediately alerts medical staff, who can jump into action to reach the person in acute distress.

“We always have a human in the loop,” Shtein said.”

Clive Robinson • April 17, 2024 4:02 PM

Nice to hear from you,

“How about the person tabling the amendments has to, as a prior requirement, have read all of them out aloud to an elected representative of the Bill.”

Is there not something about “cruel and unnatural punishment” in the US system?

It does seam a harsh punishment for the elected representative to be forced to sit and listen to the attacker 😉

Plus where is the entertainment value for C-Span viewers?

I thought in the US “politics was a blood sport” of Roman Circus ethics or worse 😇

lurker • April 17, 2024 4:42 PM

@Clive Robinson

I eouldn’t know, living in the Southern hemisphere, but I assumed the subject incident occurred north of the 49th parallel.

Clive Robinson • April 17, 2024 6:28 PM

“I assumed the subject incident occurred north of the 49th parallel.”

What can I say in my defence 😉

The fact the report made it feel “So American” as did “the behaviour” of those conservative politicians giving value for money to what sound like American BigEnergy corporate lobbying…

What was needed was a clear differentiation say a “Mountie in uniform” or similar to remind us, but… Today is wednesday, and I guess we need something more as Canadian Politicians see themselves as a stand in,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FshU58nI0Ts

(For those in the EU there is a version in psudo-german).

Clive Robinson • April 17, 2024 7:17 PM

You do not need AI to make political points

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ifLqzLEB3E0

Some times the question “Why?” Can not be answered so you might as well, if the opportunity arises, just enjoy the madness.

paula h • April 17, 2024 7:54 PM

Zaphod and Clive, making the legislator read their entire very long bill aloud would just be called a filibuster in the USA (and elsewhere; it goes back to ancient Rome). I assume Bruce mentioned it in the referenced book.

It turns out that the rules sometimes allow a politictian to speak for as long as they want. Politicians are the last group of people to which such an invitation should be proffered, and I doubt Zaphod’s proposal wouldn’t stop them (especially if they’re willing to wear diapers). Strom Thurmond read the election laws of every state, some court decisions, and a George Washington speech… for over 24 hours, in a last-ditch effort to keep racial segregation legal.

Shymaa Arafat • April 18, 2024 12:30 AM

I’m sorry I’m not commenting on the exact topic of the post, but I thought if you Sir suggested a topic & managed its workshop https://securecomm.eai-conferences.org/2024/call-workshop-proposals/ It would be really of great value. . I also thought you may be willing to participate on my workshop proposal on e-voting. (I realize that your blog is rich with more other valuable & interesting topics) . It’s really impressive to find the author of the first cryptography book I’ve read even before Stallings, we shared photo copied chapters of your book for a year or two before even seeing the real book and I was fascinated by the DES S-Boxes secret story, the meetings they made objecting,…etc and how they discovered the reason after 20 years, it was defense against deferential attacks. . In the memory of Prof. Dr Ahmed Belal, the one who gave us (his post graduate students) your book . Regards, Shymaa Arafat

Clive Robinson • April 18, 2024 2:30 AM

I hope you are well and things are moving in the progressing nicely direction?

“It turns out that the rules sometimes allow a politictian to speak for as long as they want.”

Does that give their comfortably seated colleagues,

“Just cause to sleep on the job?”

As they say,

“Just asking for a friend” 😉

paula h • April 18, 2024 10:37 AM

Does that give their comfortably seated colleagues, “Just cause to sleep on the job?”

It does, and they’re not necessarily seated; sometimes beds are brought in, as during a January 2011 filibuster in the U.K.’s House of Lords. It’s important to stay rested, because tiredness can be exploited as a security flaw. Quoting Wikipedia: “On April 4 [1997], exhausted and often sleepy government members inadvertently let one of the NDP amendments pass, and the handful of residents of Cafon Court in Etobicoke[, Ontario, Canada] were granted the right to a public consultation on the bill, although the government subsequently nullified this with an amendment of its own.”

Clive Robinson • April 18, 2024 12:00 PM

“… were granted the right to a public consultation on the bill, although the government subsequently nullified this with an amendment of its own.”

So the “Representatives of the People” were being typically “dictatorial” and doing “Might is Right” nonsense on the pretense of “for the common good”…

I wonder which side got the better stuffed “brown envelopes” from the lobbyists?

It’s funny to think that few now know why “brown envelopes” were associated with sinfulness…

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Remember personal info?

Fill in the blank: the name of this blog is Schneier on ___________ (required):

Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.

Powered by WordPress Hosted by Pressable