I need help with this essay question!!

PLEASEE!
How do the formal amendment process and constitutional change by other means compare as expressions of popular sovereignty?

The only way I know to change the Constitution is by a formal Constitutional Amendment. How else can the Constitution be changed?

Popular sovereignty means the will of the people.

So what would be a good way to put that question in an essay format.. it only has to be like three or more sentences that have good explanations..

I also have that essay question! .. It's hard for me to do these!

You first have to define the question. What is another way to change the Constitution without a formal amendment?

Ummm... well I know how to change it with* a formal amendment, but I don't know of any way to do it without, and I don't have my book with me because we only have classroom copies that we can't take home..

To compare the formal amendment process and constitutional change by other means as expressions of popular sovereignty, we first need to understand what popular sovereignty means in the context of governance.

Popular sovereignty is the principle that the authority of the government is derived from the consent of the people. In other words, it ensures that the power to govern ultimately resides with the citizens. Now, let's explore the two processes of amending a constitution and changing it through means other than formal amendments.

1. Formal Amendment Process:
The formal amendment process is explicitly outlined in the constitution itself. It usually involves a set of steps that need to be followed in order to modify the existing constitution. The common steps for a formal amendment process include proposal and ratification.

- Proposal: Amendments can be proposed either by the Congress (both houses, with a two-thirds majority vote in each), or by a national convention summoned by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures.
- Ratification: Amendments can be ratified by either the state legislatures (three-fourths of the states) or state conventions (three-fourths of the states' conventions).

By following this formal process, the general idea behind the formal amendment process is that it ensures the will of the people is reflected in the changes made to the constitution. It gives citizens the opportunity to voice their opinion through their elected representatives at the federal or state level.

2. Constitutional Change by Other Means:
While the formal amendment process is the standard method for changing the constitution, there are instances where constitutional change occurs through other means not explicitly outlined in the constitution. These other means can include:

- Judicial Interpretation: The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, can interpret the constitution in a particular way that effectively changes its meaning or application. This occurs through landmark court cases or through a series of rulings that, over time, shape the interpretation of the constitution.
- Custom and Tradition: Over time, certain practices may become accepted as part of the constitutional framework, even if they are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. These customs and traditions influence the way the constitution is understood and implemented.

The comparison between the formal amendment process and constitutional change by other means as expressions of popular sovereignty is based on the extent to which they reflect the will and consent of the people. The formal amendment process directly involves the people's elected representatives, giving citizens a voice through the proposals and ratification process. On the other hand, constitutional change by other means relies on the judiciary or evolving customs and traditions, which may or may not align with the will of the majority.

In conclusion, the formal amendment process directly involves the people through their representatives, while constitutional change by other means may be influenced by other branches of government, such as the judiciary, or by societal customs. Both processes can be seen as expressions of popular sovereignty, but the degree of direct citizen participation and influence may vary.