Answers for your legal questions

How many states must ratify an amendment for it to become a part of the u.s. constitution? law answers (18784)

People haved asked the following law querstions similar to "how many states must ratify an amendment for it to become a part of the u.s. constitution?". If you have other legal doubts, use the box above to get answers.

Q: 

In regards to Morse v. Fredrick can/should First amendment law only be made in cases of serious messages? Why or why not?

A:  Some comments here: Just on the issue of serious messages, it would be very difficult to limit the 1st amendment in this way.  Think about how hard it would be to define a ''serious'' message in any fair way.  You could argue that, in 1848, a call for women''s rights was not ''serious'' and could have been suppressed.  So what is not serious at one time may become serious later.  Giving the government the power to decide what is or is not serious would be problematic.  So, to me, the 1st amendment can''t and shouldn''t be limited in this way.You should realize, however, that the ruling in this case is tied really closely to the fact that this was a student across from his school.  So this is not really a case about general First

Q: 

I wouldn't burn a flag. Want to argue with my claim that it's my right to?

A:  No, I won''t argue with you. You have the legal right to burn a flag, a Bible, a cross, a Koran, or whatever property of yours you want, unless you are breaking some other law (arson, anti-pollution laws, harassment, etc.) which is not aimed at banning the "message" you are trying to convey. Your point about the sentiment, not the act, being at issue is a good one. I have an extremely low opinion of the practice, of course. But you only asked a legal question. No I wouldnt burn either a flag or a bible the flag has a ceremony that goes with burning and the Bible (at least mine) has irreplaceable notes that I need Actually, your logic, is slightly flawed. If you buy a house, you cannot burn it down, it''s...

Q: 

When were the first ten amendments ratified?

A:  The first ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified in 1791. They were all ratified together because they were all written together. They were written with the constitution because they are the rights that the men who drafted the constitution wanted to guarantee for all United states Citizens....

Q: 

Which amendment handles drinking age?

A:  The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, but the states still have some leeway in determining the application of the law. It does not prohibit persons under 21 (also called youth or minors) from drinking. The term ''public possession'' is strictly defined and does not apply to possession for the following: •An established religious purpose, when accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian age 21 or older •Medical purposes when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital or medical institution •In private clubs or establishments •In the course of lawful employment by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer.” 1 (Emphasis in original. Conspicuously...

Q: 

What was the last state to ratify the Bill of Rights?

A:  The Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments to the u.s. constitution, was drafted by the first Congress of the new government in 1789 and went into effect on December 15, 1791, when Virginia became the eleventh state to ratify the amendments....

Q: 

What does the 10th amendment of the constitution state?

A:  10th amendment the Powers not delegated to the United states by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people....

Q: 

Everything Amendable In US constitution? How to incorporate an amendment Lock

A:  >What''s absent is the legal equivalent of a feedback loop that keepsthe lock intact. Your solution is sxtremely complex--- and all we would need to circumvent it would be a "boltcutter" amendment. As it is, it is pretty hard to amend the constitution. ***** Tim Horrigan <horrigan...aol.com> ***** >As it is, it is pretty hard to amend the constitution. The procedures in our current constitution are designed to make it tough but not TOO tough to amend the constitution. If you make it too tough to amend a constitution, you run the risk of the country simply scrapping it in favor of a whole new

Q: 

To the supporters of Roe vs. Wade

A:  Re: To the supporters of Roe vs. Wade john w k wrote:To the supporters of Roe vs. Wade[/color] I have long been amazed at those who defend Roe vs. Wade and their complicity in the subjugation of our constitutional system! The constitution secures and protects individual liberty from both FEDERAL and STATE oppression of individual liberty. The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, struck down an oppressive state law as unconstitutional in violation of the Fourteenth amendment. The Court decided a case or controversy arising under the constitution and was acting in accordance with the powers it was delegated in the

Q: 

Why would Jefferson want the Bill of Rights?

A:  Neil wrote:have heard this was "to make sure" etc., but that sounds like a flabby argument. What do you think, and what was said at the time? No, that is pretty much correct. You see Jeffferson and the anti-federalists did not even want to ratify the constitution. They just wanted to amend the AoC. Madison, jay, and the Federalists (who were really nationalists) wanted a constitution. The anti-federalists said that they would agree more with the federalist position provided that a bill of rights was included. The purpose of the bill of rights was to establish FURTHER declatory standards. Most people don''t even know that the bill of rights has a preamble. Here it is: The conventions of a number of the

Q: 

The Equal Protection Clause does not prevent the government from discriminating in all cases

A:  All laws discriminate.  laws against murder treat murderers differently than other types of people.  All laws classify people like that.  It''s just that some classifications are legal, according to the Court, and some aren''t. Most classifications (like murderers) get standard scrutiny and are always upheld.  But other classifications (race, national origin, religion) get strict scrutiny.  laws that discriminate on those bases must be very closely tailored to accomplishing a compelling state interest.  In other words, you have to have a really good reason to discriminate and there had better be no other way to do it. Gender has typically gotten a level of scrutiny in between strict and...