Please answer this newseala question i had to take two pics because the whole thing couldn't fit

Amending the Constitution: Get With the Times

Problem

The Constitution of the United States has often been called a “living document.” Why? Labeling it a founding document makes sense – the Constitution outlines our current government system. It’s equally vital and historic, but so is the Declaration of Independence, and that document has never been called “living.” How can the Constitution, a work created in the 1780s, be considered alive?

The Explanation

The American Constitution is considered a living document because of its ability to change with the times. This is done by passing Amendments.  

Definition of Amendment

An amendment, generally speaking, is any change added to improve something. More specific to this topic, an amendment is an article added to the US Constitution to improve and update the document.  

How It Works

The founding fathers were trying to create a nation that would last and prosper. They knew that in order for a nation to survive, it needed to be capable of adapting over time. Thus, they included Article V of the Constitution, a step-by-step process of amending the document.

There are two ways for an amendment to be proposed. Congress can directly instigate a change “if two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.” This means that two-thirds of the Senate and then two-thirds of the House of Representatives or vice versa need to vote “yes” on the amendment for it to even be considered being added to the Constitution. The second method of proposing an amendment is equally difficult. If Congress doesn’t want to make a proposal, a national convention can be held. If the convention is called for by at least two-thirds of the states and then the amendment is approved by gathered delegates, the amendment is considered proposed.  

The process isn’t over yet. The amendment has just been proposed. It still needs to be ratified. Either the legislatures of three-fourths of all states or state ratifying conventions in three-fourths of all states must approve of the proposed amendment to ratify it. The amendment is then officially part of the Constitution.  

Slow to Change

The process of amending the Constitution is very difficult. It requires that a large majority of the United States already agree that an amendment is absolutely necessary before it can even be proposed, let alone ratified. While our nation’s founders undoubtedly believed in change, they largely believed in slow, controlled change. They purposefully made it difficult for the Constitution to be amended. Hundreds of amendments have been proposed since the Constitution itself was made, but only twenty-seven have been ratified. The twenty-seventh amendment was ratified in 1992, 202 years after it was submitted.  

In general, there isn’t a deadline or expiration date for a proposed amendment to be ratified, unless it’s specifically stated within the amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress can provide a deadline date for ratification, if it so chooses. Since the twentieth century, proposals usually have a seven-year ratification deadline, but it isn’t strictly necessary nor is there any Constitutional provision directly calling for ratification deadlines. This new custom has only made the ratification process more difficult.

Why Care?

Amending the Constitution is a huge undertaking – it’s specifically designed to be difficult so that only changes that are vital to the entire county are made. A fickle fad isn’t going to get ratified, let alone proposed. However, it’s also been argued that the requirement for such sweeping majorities lets small minorities easily block new amendments. There’s been plenty of debate over changing the amendment process so that its requirements are more manageable, but that would require its own difficult-to-pass amendment.

The idea behind the amendment process is that the states will take care of their own problems as they see fit. For the federal government to get involved and make sweeping changes that will affect the whole, a majority of the whole nation should be behind said changes. This unfortunately means that the battle for adding an amendment is a long, pain-staking battle, but it also means that the amendments that do get added are agreed to be fundamentally good and necessary to our nation.

Explanation:

Jefferson was a man of the Enlightenment. This was the period during the 17th and 18th centuries when thinkers turned to reason and science to explain both the physical universe and human behavior. Those like Jefferson thought that by discovering the "laws of nature" humanity could be improved.

Jefferson did not invent the ideas that he used to justify the American Revolution. He himself said that he had adopted the "harmonizing sentiments of the day." These ideas were, so to speak, "in the air" at the time.

As a man of the Enlightenment, Jefferson was well acquainted with British history and political philosophy. He also had read the statements of independence drafted by Virginia and other colonies as well as the writings of fellow revolutionaries like Tom Paine and George Mason. In composing the declaration, Jefferson followed the format of the English Declaration of Rights, written after the Glorious Revolution of 1689.

Most scholars today believe that Jefferson derived the most famous ideas in the Declaration of Independence from the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government in 1689 at the time of England's Glorious Revolution, which overthrew the rule of James II.

Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."

Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason.

Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching.

By "property," Locke meant more than land and goods that could be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one's self, which included a right to personal well being. Jefferson, however, substituted the phrase, "pursuit of happiness," which Locke and others had used to describe freedom of opportunity as well as the duty to help those in want.

The purpose of government, Locke wrote, is to secure and protect the God-given inalienable natural rights of the people. For their part, the people must obey the laws of their rulers. Thus, a sort of contract exists between the rulers and the ruled. But, Locke concluded, if a government persecutes its people with "a long train of abuses" over an extended period, the people have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new political system.

Jefferson adopted John Locke's theory of natural rights to provide a reason for revolution. He then went on to offer proof that revolution was necessary in 1776 to end King George's tyranny over the colonists.

Explanation: