Articles Of Amendment: Fill & Download for Free

US and India tried very different approaches to drafting the constitution. Neither way is more correct. It was just more suited to their own societies. US constitution is so short and simple that all the states in America accepted it. The Indian Constitution is so comprehensive that it passed the Constituent Assembly of India. One goal, different approaches.American framers wanted to create a very simple system that would provide the basic blueprint, but not impact the day-to-day governance too much. Since it was designed in quite a simple way, it didn't require a lot of amendments. Most of the stuff in the constitution is so straightforward and "self-evident" that it stands the test of time without much modification.Indian framers understood the complex demands of a massive society, speaking 1600 languages and practicing dozens of religions, and didn't want to leave anything ambiguous. They wanted to keep things as explicit as possible. They put everything from cow rights [as a non-binding Directive] to how the state of Kashmir is to be treated in India. Since it was so specific and comprehensive, it required a lot of amendments with the passage of time. We also had an out-of-control Prime Minister who tried to amend a whole bunch of schedules on her whim and a successor who had to pass a few more amendments to clean up the mess. This action in 1975-77 artificially inflated the number of amendments to the Indian Constitution.

The only declared Republican anyone knows of who might want to repeal any of Amendments 13–15 would be David Duke, and as I’m sure you know, any candidacy for public office by Mr. Duke is always immediately disavowed by the Republican Party leadership. He can legally call himself a Republican, but the party doesn’t want him. (He used to be a Democrat. They didn’t want him, either.)No one in the mainstream of the GOP has any problems whatsoever with those amendments. There are some in the party who would gladly kill the 16th and/or 17th, but they are part of the libertarian wing of the party, not the mainstream, and these have nothing to do with human rights. One allows the federal income tax and the other the direct election of U.S. Senators.As for the first part of your question, there is no one who can declare a duly ratified Amendment as unconstitutional. What you have to understand is that when an Amendment is ratified, it becomes part of the Constitution. Therefore, by definition, any amendment is constitutional. The amendment can itself be amended or even removed later on, like the 18th (Prohibition) was, but it cannot be struck down by any court.In fact, one reason amendments are passed is because there is a desire to make something forbidden by the Constitution as permissible. The 16th is a good example. The national government was not permitted to levy a direct tax on incomes without regard to proportionality between the states, and that amendment allowed it do so. You probably already know my opinion on that. That’s not the only reason for amendments, but it’s an important one.To repeal an amendment, you simply pass another amendment that declares the original one to be repealed, as in the text of the 21st:Amendment XXISection 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.This is the one that ended Prohibition, although way too late to stop the rise of the Mob in the United States.As far as I know, there is no serious movement to undo any other amendments today, except for the aforementioned 16th and 17th, mostly the latter. There are movements to add new amendments, such as reviving the ERA, abolishing the Electoral College, force the national government to have a balanced budget, term limits for Representatives and Senators, and statehood for Washington, D.C., but there is no consensus on any of these ideas. Nearly all of them are favored by either Democrats or Libertarians; Republicans prefer to keep things as they are now.

Probably not:These names have brand recognition and are worth a lot of money. And most people probably don’t know what they’re derived from:538: Number of Electors in presidential elections.435 US Representatives (fixed by law since 1929).100 Senators (2 each from 50 States).3 from the District of Columbia. Why? The 23rd Amendment. D.C. gets 2 + 1 electors.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.To win, a presidential candidate needs an outright majority of the EC. Half of 538 is 269. One more than that is 270.Technically, Mac Tan could decide to create 540.com if Puerto Rico becomes a state and the 1929 law isn’t updated to allow more representatives. I’d be surprised if well known-sites change their names just to be more accurate. Sometimes, your brand is so well-known that it doesn’t make much sense to change it. That’s why we still the United Negro College Fund.