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.
Answer:
Explanation:
I tend to side with those who think civil liberties are extremely important; they are almost written in stone. They were put in the constitution to protect citizens from governments misusing their power. The government is so much more power than any one person and perhaps any one group. Moreover, they make the laws. The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) are meant to make sure citizens at least have the opportunity to exercise those rights.
However there are times when the rights go a little to far. Numerous times since 1968, introduced various proposals that attempted to protect the rights of the American Flag. On those occasions either congress or the Supreme Court protected the individual by saying burning the flag comes under the First Amendment -- freedom of expression.
My own opinion is that many people have died defending the flag. I don't know that free speech is more powerful than the right to burn a sacred symbol. I think there are limits to free speech.
The clause is really a state's rights clause. A state may not pass a law that makes something illegal that was legal before the law was passed. In other words if a state suddenly passed a law that said it is no longer legal to park your car in front of any government building, but it was legal to do so yesterday, the police cannot come to your door and issue a ticket for parking in front of a government building because you did it yesterday.
The constitution actually uses the phrase ex post facto law in Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1.
From 1942 to 1945, it was the policy of the U.S. government that people of Japanese descent would be interred in isolated camps. Enacted in reaction to Pearl Harbor and the ensuing war, the Japanese internment camps are now considered one of the most atrocious violations of American civil rights in the 20th century hopefully this help :)
2.What economic and social factors in the United States led to differing ideas about slavery in the North and the South? Explain and support your answer with details.
Northern States,dependent on merchants and trading posts, had no need for slaves, seeing that they were well equipped with machinery and factory job, and needed skilled, trained labor.. Money making was easier, and they had the idea that they could bring these jobs to the South.But the South, which relied heavily on agriculture, and needed a lot of manpower to keep it running. But, unlike the more Puritan North, they decided to rely on slaves, refusing to pay them.So when the North became aware of this, it created upset, and unrest.
