Why did Shays Rebellion led to a change in the existing Constitution?
82886
When paper money was outlawed in 1781 farmers were hurt because farming brought in little or no sliver and gold. They couldn' pay their debts and in Massachusetts in that time debtors were thrown into jail, so most farmers went to jail. Daniel Shays and a group of people protested this outside the Massachusetts courts in Springfield, MA. They also took over the United States arsenal building in Springfield. There was a violent roit and 150 people were captured. The rest including Shays fled to Rhode Island. This led to the existing Constitution because when the delegates and heads met to talk about Shay's Rebellion and trade issues they created the Virginia plan which was made up of these three parts:\n(1) Congress, the legislative branch, would make laws.\n(2) An executive branch would carry out laws.\n(3) United States courts would see that justice was done under those laws. \nThey like idea so much they got rid of the Articles of Confederation and wrote our now Constitution.
888111
Congress can amend, make changes, to the constitution by creating amendments that are added to it. Now take note that I said 'added' and 'amend'. \n\nThe reason is that Congress can NOT actually change the wording of the constitution... they can only ADD to it. \n\nThese amendments may be descriptions or clarifications of portions of the constitution that already exist but they are not alterations.
285989
The Constitution gave the federal goverment more power.  Go to this site for a comparison:\n\nhttp://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.art.html
90274
Most of the state constitutions were written over a century ago. Things change. For instance, the constitution of the state of Alabama had to be changed to remove racist elements.
952352
First, there would need to be a Constitutional Amendment passes to change the way the President and Vice President is selected. This usually takes a couple years to do. It could be done faster, but it would need to be approved by 3/4 of the states, and a lot of them are smaller and benefit from the electoral system more than they would from a popular vote. So you need to convince them that it is needed.\n\nAfter that, Congress would then need to work out all the various details on doing a national popular election. As it is now, that is left to the States. There are very few laws on the federal level dealing with elections. And after this, I'm sure there would be several states fighting these laws in court for a few years, claiming the new laws were unconstitutional because they infringe on the State's rights.\n\nWe have less than two years before the next election. I don't think that is enough time to get all this done. A better idea (and quicker) is to convince your state legislators to change the way they distribute their votes. Most states (48 of them) give all electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote in the state. Get your state to change it to distribute it more proportional to the popular vote (unless you already live in one of the two states that do something like this).
242485
After the Revolutionary War the U.S. Constitution was formed. This at first contained NO rights for these groups of people. But later on when the further amendments were added to the constitution this included some rights for woman and slavery was abolished (banned) As for the Indians many of them were long gone by then.
651748
WITHOUT THE CONSTITUTION,WHAT GUARANTEE WOULD YOU HAVE THAT YOU CAN KEEP ANY FREEDOMS.THERE WERE PEOPLE THAT WANTED TO MAKE WASHINGTON A KING AFTER THE REVOLUTION WAS WON.ALL WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR NAUGHT.BE THANKFUL HIS AND OTHER HEADS WERE CLEAR TO THE CAUSE.
209857
No. The constitution was written to replace the "Articles of Confederation" the United States first failed constitution.\n\nThe Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are actually companion documents.  The Declaration lays out the principles upon which our nation is based, while the Constitution is an outline of the purpose and role of the government based upon those principles.
804287
To utterly demolish it.  Those were different times with different circumstances. There were no pre existing laws that were broke and now there are.
125225
The constitution was ratified in 1787.
23933
During the 1850s, the compromise over land had made the country divided. Not only was it due to slavery, it was the lack of state's rights (that differ from the federal government). President Andrew Jackson even argued with his Vice President that states do not have any reason to disband from the country and its rules after the states have signed the ultimate contract, the Declaration of Independence. The secession of South Carolina demonstrated the frustrations of state's rights and slavery disputes.\n\nIf you need to cite any failed compromises, the biggest one that could be used would be the Missouri Compromise. It was eventually considered as a failure once Dred-Scott jurisdiction contested with it.
906727
here's what I just found as part of my history notes.  it's why the Anti-Federalists didn't want the constitution.  to answer the second part of your question though, I know that the Federalists appeased the anti-federalists with a bill of rights to make them support the constitution.  so here's, from my US history notes, why the Anti-Federalists were opposed to the constitution in the first place, sorry for the shorthand:\n\n"-said that the Constitution should have been made in public meetings instead of private things between a few elite ppl: therefore it wouldn’t reflect the wants of the people\n-said the new const gave too much power to national gov; took away powers of state govs\n-congress itself, according to const, would be given too much power to make laws\n-separation of powers between executive and legislative wasn’t very good\n-const allowed a standing army, which scared the antifeds\n-no bill of rights; const did not give any rights to the ppl, so gov could take them away whenever they wanted; antifeds wanted a const to specifically give unabridgeable rights\n-anti-feds wanted it to be more democratic and direct to the ppl"
925556
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty, which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. –Alexander Hamilton\n\nTaking away the power of Congress elections just because of war goes against everything that our founding fathers would have wanted.  The reason that there is a legislative branch, and we have open debates for our laws, is to hear dissenting opinions.  Read the Federalist Paper No. 10, from which the above quote is taken. It tells you exactly why we need Congress.   No.6-10 are very good resources\n\nSection Four provides that states may regulate the "times, places and manner" of holding Congressional elections, except Senators.  So if there were dire circumstances they could change the date of an election.  This section also states that Congress must assemble at least once each year.  From this it is my understanding they must convene even under context of war,  back-biting and all things included.\n\nThey held an election during the Civil War which was even more divisive for our country.
75234
The Articles of Confederation weren't working, so our Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia to fix it.  They soon decided that it couldn't be fixed, so they started from scratch and wrote the constitution.  The Constitution then had to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, before it went into affect.  The Constitution is full of compromises on controversial issues.
811735
Because at the time, it seemed to make the most sense to everyone.  Some people agreed and others disagreed on some aspects of it but it appeased the majority of people in each state.  Off the top of my head that is what I can come up with at the time.    Dude I answered like two of your history questions.    Do you need things for a history class by the way??  Go to constituioncenter.org if you need more info on the constitution.  Hope that helps!!
300452
By definition, the Bill of Rights can never be changed.  That is because it is defined as the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.\n\nBut the Constitution itself can be amended.  The most recent is the 27th amendment, which states that when members of Congress give themselves a pay raise, they have to wait until after an election for it to take effect.  It was proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1992.
800335
Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint. -- Alexander Hamilton\n\nShays’ Rebellion had a lot to do with changing their minds.  Without a stronger “Union” they (United States) had little power to put down the uprising.\n\nOn the other hand, Confederations are very weak forms of government.  To put things into perspective, many confederations have been tried throughout world history, but none survive today.  The main reason is because states maintained their full sovereignty. Since they were all individual nations, there was little motivation for allegiance to each other.  This is especially true when it came to commerce among the states.  Also the articles were very limited when it came to what they regulated, and had definitive language that would prove to be obsolete over the years.  The Founders wanted something that would last.