Free Essays on Amendments To The Constitution

Kathleen Sullivan writes about the recent increase in proposed amendments to the United States’ Constitution and how this could possibly be detrimental to our government in the future. She begins by mentioning how little the constitution has been amended in its history (only 27 times). This, she writes, is due to the level of difficulty that is attributed to this process. Using a system of checks and balances, there are only two ways to ratify an amendment. Either both houses of Congress must agree by a vote of two-thirds or two-thirds of the states may request a constitutional convention. Even after these processes are achieved, three fourths of the states must vote to ratify before the amendment is passed. According to Sullivan, it is this process that has preserved our Constitution’s â€Å"purity† and our government’s time tested way of enacting and maintaining laws. Obviously believing that frequent ratification of new amendments is a threat to o ur system, she gives us five reasons why our Constitution works as it exists today. The first reason Sullivan gives for the Constitution’s continuing success is its stability. By this she means that we can rely on it being unchanging because it has been for over 200 years. Laws may change according to era and popularity but the basic principles set forth by our forefathers are still in tact. Secondly, she mentions the rule of law. Basically, the Constitution was set forth to be a base on which to build a government. It was not meant to be specific. That task was to be left to individual state constitutions. Sullivan also writes that the Constitution was written as a whole document. How things worked together was important. Adding amendments in a â€Å"piecemeal† fashion undermines the basic principles set forth. One example given is the amendment proposed to ban flag desecration. By banning protest (flag burning) it is inhibiting freedom of speech. The fourth an... Free Essays on Amendments To The Constitution Free Essays on Amendments To The Constitution Kathleen Sullivan writes about the recent increase in proposed amendments to the United States’ Constitution and how this could possibly be detrimental to our government in the future. She begins by mentioning how little the constitution has been amended in its history (only 27 times). This, she writes, is due to the level of difficulty that is attributed to this process. Using a system of checks and balances, there are only two ways to ratify an amendment. Either both houses of Congress must agree by a vote of two-thirds or two-thirds of the states may request a constitutional convention. Even after these processes are achieved, three fourths of the states must vote to ratify before the amendment is passed. According to Sullivan, it is this process that has preserved our Constitution’s â€Å"purity† and our government’s time tested way of enacting and maintaining laws. Obviously believing that frequent ratification of new amendments is a threat to o ur system, she gives us five reasons why our Constitution works as it exists today. The first reason Sullivan gives for the Constitution’s continuing success is its stability. By this she means that we can rely on it being unchanging because it has been for over 200 years. Laws may change according to era and popularity but the basic principles set forth by our forefathers are still in tact. Secondly, she mentions the rule of law. Basically, the Constitution was set forth to be a base on which to build a government. It was not meant to be specific. That task was to be left to individual state constitutions. Sullivan also writes that the Constitution was written as a whole document. How things worked together was important. Adding amendments in a â€Å"piecemeal† fashion undermines the basic principles set forth. One example given is the amendment proposed to ban flag desecration. By banning protest (flag burning) it is inhibiting freedom of speech. The fourth an...

Compound Words Dont Always Compare

Compound Words Dont Always Compare Compound Words Don’t Always Compare Compound Words Don’t Always Compare By Mark Nichol When it comes to linking words to form new words, English is a particularly mischievous language. Different compound words with an element word in common, or pairs of words analogous to each other, may be inconsistent about the presence or absence of a letter space or a hyphen when you see them listed in the dictionary and other resources. That goes especially for directional duos. Keep a sharp lookout for these spacing shenanigans: Front and Back For some perverse reason, a few common compounds that include front, and their back correspondents, are treated differently: â€Å"front door,† backdoor (but only as an adjective); â€Å"front seat,† backseat; â€Å"front yard,† backyard. How could this have happened? Perhaps its the ubiquity of other closed compounds beginning with back (such as backache, background, and backlash) compared to the absence of front-loaded analogues. Speaking of front-load, compounds beginning with front, such as that word and â€Å"front man,† are invariably open or hyphenated, and if they have back counterparts (you can back-load, but no one refers to a back man), those are also open or hyphenated. Another contributing factor may be that back constructions are idiomatically richer: â€Å"backdoor man,† â€Å"backseat driver,† and â€Å"backyard grill† have given compounds beginning with back a higher profile, so it’s likely they tend to evolve from open to closed compounds with greater alacrity becoming front-runners, as it were. In and Out After studying compounds beginning with in, I’m done in. Adjectival forms, whether tangible (in-flight) or intangible (in-depth), are often hyphenated, but so are many noun forms, such as in-group and in-joke. Meanwhile, most hyphenated terms beginning with out are obscure, like the fiscal term out-year, or as with out-migrate (â€Å"emigrate†). Exceptions include out-front, meaning â€Å"honest,† and out-there, meaning â€Å"unusual.† Fortunately, the most common usages are inbounds (though the antonym for that word is not outbounds, but â€Å"out of bounds†). Indoor and outdoor, inward and outward, inset and outset (though that last pair do not have antonymic meanings) don’t try to outfox or outbox us. But speaking of outbox, why, in clerical contexts, is it in-box and out-box, not inbox and outbox? This reasoning is a stretch: Though you can’t inbox someone, you can outbox them, so that form’s already taken. I’m satisfied to see the clerical terms remain hyphenated, while the pugilistic outbox is closed. Up and Down Why do you show up for a showdown? In this case, one is a verb phrase and the other is a noun. But compound nouns ending with up are usually closed (buildup, markup, windup). An exception for closure is close-up (meaning â€Å"a proximal view,† not â€Å"to lock a store for the night,† which would be hyphenated only before a noun: â€Å"He carefully followed the close-up procedure†). That’s because it follows the rule that words ending with vowels are generally hyphenated to others, rather than, well, closed up. Adjectival compounds beginning with up (such as up-country and up-tempo) and down (generally, more obscure than their up counterparts, like down-home) tend to be hyphenated. However, up nouns are usually closed (upshot, downfall). Though open or hyphenated up equivalents are almost nonexistent, down compounds can be open (the card-playing term â€Å"down card†) or hyphenated (the music term down-bow) as well. What’s the take-away (not to be confused with take-in)? Keep your dictionary handy. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Spelling category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:When to Capitalize Animal and Plant NamesIs There a Reason â€Å"the Reason Why† Is Considered Wrong?Prepositions to Die With