7. The development of the colonial charter into a written constitution:-- a. The limitation of the powers of colonial assemblies. b. The decision of questions relating to the transgression of a charter by a colonial legislature. c. The colonial assembly as contrasted with the House of Commons. d. The difference between the written constitution and the charter for which it was substituted. e. The readiness of the people to adopt written constitutions. 8. The extensive development of the written constitution in some states:-- a. The simplicity of the earlier constitutions. b. Illustrations of the legislative tendencies of later constitutions. c. The motive for such extension of a constitution. d. The difficulty of amending a constitution. e. The legislative method of amendment. f. The convention method of amendment. g. The presumed advantage of embodying laws in the constitution. h. A comparison with the Swiss Referendum. i. Objections to the Swiss Referendum. j. Other objections to the practice of putting laws into the constitution. SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS. 1. Do you belong to any society that has a constitution? Has the society rules apart from the constitution? Which may be changed the more readily? Why not put all the rules into the constitution? 2. Read the constitution of your state in part or in full. Give some account of its principal divisions, of the topics it deals with, and its magnitude or fullness. Are there any amendments? If so, mention two or three, and give the reasons for their adoption. Is there any declaration of rights in it? If so, what are some of the rights declared, and whose are they said to be? 3. Where is the original of your state constitution kept? What sort of looking document do you suppose it to be? Where would you look for a copy of it? If a question arises in any court about the interpretation of the constitution, must the original be produced to settle the wording of the document? 4. Has any effort been made in your state to put into the constitution matters that have previously been subjects of legislative action? If so, give an account of the effort, and the public attitude towards it. 5. Which is preferable,--a constitution that commands the approval of the people as a whole or that which has the support of a dominant political party only? 6. Suppose it is your personal conviction that a law is unconstitutional, may you disregard it? What consequences might ensue from such disregard? 7. May people honestly and amicably differ about the interpretation of the constitution or of a law, in a particular case? If important interests are dependent on the interpretation, how can the true one be found out? Does a lawyer's opinion settle the interpretation? What value has such an opinion? Where must people go for authoritative and final interpretations of the laws? Can they get such interpretations by simply asking for them?