The constitutionally prescribed procedures reflect sovereignty because propositions and their necessary ratification have the ability and can change the Constitution; this is self-describable. To note, *sovereignty* can be defined as a self-governing state. The **ability to change the constitution implies possible room for readjustment, that is, for the purpose of more efficient self-governance**. Those demanding changes can come from the people’s preference or the chosen representatives, which the Congress then executes; this reflects popular sovereignty.

They reflect federalism because changes to the Constitution possibly being made are the duty of the legislation to create and proceed (ratify). This **implies control of the system by the possibility of making changes**, and *federalism* is defined as a territory in the government system managed by two levels of it that control it. The government’s officials can call for the convention and make ratifications. Said more simply, something is under someone’s control when they can change it.

The **purpose of the Bill of Rights** is to, fundamentally, **assure individual rights and liberties**.

The Bill of Rights is a group of amendments to which the government has sworn to oblige by and function according to or aims to achieve. The Bill of Rights **legally allows** anyone **freedom of religion, freedom of speech, rights to bear arms legally, assembly, and process of law.**

Americans sometimes refer to it as the foundation of the United States. It is based on and for the remarkable statement “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect union…” et cetera.

The Bill of Rights that the government bases on legally guarantees freedom and rights to its citizens.

Wilson resembles the **Supreme Court** with **constant progression of development**, as per ongoing legal decisions and verdicts that always aim to achieve more justice. As we know, justice is one of the hardest things to attain.

With the given expression, Wilson could also be referring to the literal **constant ongoing of cases**; the sessions never stop because there are so many matters to be decided upon.

Wilson refers to the Supreme court’s constant progression and perhaps the never-ending sessions because of many cases to conclude that continuously keep coming.

The **founders made a difficult amendment process** so that the amendments already stated are further solidified.

Considering that the **amendments are supposed to be** clear, precise, purposeful and **concise**, there is **no point in having hundreds of amendments**.

The difficult way to make amendments a part of the Constitution creates a **system of security** in which an amendment **can not enter easily and quickly**. It truly has to be just, providing something beneficial that the Constitution does not already have.

It is hard to make new things amendment because the Constitution is already based on fundamental principles. It takes a genius to come up with something that already is not stated, or something that has to drastically and externally change in society might demand new amendments.

To suppose, many of the amendments were not sufficient and worthy enough to go through the process of ratification. There were probably one’s who did not have a meaningful enough purpose or have been saying the same thing as already existing amendments are, just in other words. Furthermore, there had to be one’s who did not make sense or seem to have a useful function or purpose for the Constitution.

Only 27 amendments out of many proposed have been added to the Constitution because it is a **difficult process to ratify amendments** and avoid information overload of **the Constitution that aims to be concise** unless the amendment has a newfound principle or purpose.

To start with stating that the Constitution and techniques used to prevail its relevance are all based on **unalienable rights**. Unalienable rights are always the same and cannot be taken away. This is the basis of the Constitution because and one of the reasons it prevailed.

The **government made specific roles and created a system that “pushes” for and protects the people’s natural rights**. What allows it to do so is the possibility of readjusting the Constitution in case of better outcomes. A contrast to that would be a set of rules that are rigid in nature and do not revolve around unalienable rights; chances are the government would be consistently getting outdated and probably slower in progression.

The government has a system that keeps the Constitution relevant. It is based on **five techniques** that allow the Constitution to be significant through time: **basic legislation, executive action, court decisions, party practices, and custom and usage.** Some of the techniques uphold the Constitution’s importance in, we can say, an indirect manner. Indirectly, some of the political actions are based on and are for the Constitution, resembling its significance.

The government uses five techniques to keep the Constitution relevant through time. They are basic legislation, executive action, court decisions, party practices, and customs and usage.