2. The Constitution cannot be changed on a whim; a lot of people have to work together for an amendment to be ratified. Why do you think it's necessary to make amending the Constitution such an involved process?

Explanation:

The Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1789, making it 229 years old, the oldest constitution in the modern world.

As the United States has continued to grow and face unique challenges brought on through modern warfare, alliances, and technology, some critics have argued that the Framers of the Constitution could not have foreseen the changes the United States would experience. What can we do to update the Constitution to address these new issues? Well, the Framers thought of a solution: citizens could add changes to the Constitution.

The Framers added a process for amending, or changing, the Constitution in Article V. Since 1789, the United States has added 27 amendments to the Constitution. An amendment is a change to the Constitution. The first ten amendments to the Constitution became known as the Bill of Rights. These first amendments were designed to protect individual rights and liberties, like the right to free speech and the right to trial by jury.Article V describes the process for amending the Constitution. But the Framers intended for the amendment process to be difficult: although the federal government could add amendments, three-fourths of states have to ratify every amendment.

“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.”

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is