Simone Lawson
There have been several instances of Democrats talking about amending the US Constitution. In 2019, Senate Democrats pushed for an amendment to address money in politics, aiming to regulate contributions and spending in federal elections and give state governments similar authority in statewide contests. This proposal faced Republican opposition and was deemed unlikely to succeed. During the 2016 Democratic debates, candidates discussed the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, with some suggesting a constitutional amendment to address corporate spending in politics. The Democratic Party platform in 2016 proposed two amendments: one to overturn Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo rulings on campaign financing, and the other to enshrine women's rights and ratify the elimination of discrimination against women. Additionally, some Democrats have proposed amending the Constitution to prevent court-packing in the Supreme Court, maintaining a total of nine justices. More recently, in 2024, House Democrat Joe Morelle announced a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity ruling, emphasizing accountability for presidents.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Number of Amendments | 2 |
| First Amendment | Overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo rulings on campaign financing |
| Second Amendment | Enshrine the rights of women in the Constitution by passing the Equal Rights Amendment |
| Amendment Sponsor | Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M. |
| Amendment Proponents | Marge Baker, Sen. John McCain, Sen. Klobuchar, Sen. Al Franken, Sen. Rick Hasen, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy |
| Amendment Opponents | Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. |
| Amendment Supporters | 123 organizations, including the NAACP, Greenpeace, SEIU, and UAW |
| Amendment Process | Two-thirds of both houses of Congress propose the amendment, or the amendment arises from a convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures |
| Amendment Ratification | Ratified by legislatures or conventions in three-fourths of the states |
| Amendment Motivation | Address money in politics, including campaign contributions and spending in federal elections |
| Amendment Response | Prevent Democrats from court-packing the Supreme Court by maintaining a total of nine justices |
| Amendment Sponsor | Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas |
| Amendment Co-Sponsors | Sens. Chuck Grassley, John Cornyn, Mike Lee, Mike Crapo, Shelley Moore Capito, Marsha Blackburn, Bill Cassidy, Todd Young, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Jim Banks, Jim Risch, Thom Tillis, Bill Hagerty, Katie Britt, Tim Sheehy, Roger Wicker, Deb Fischer |
| Amendment Motivation | Democrats have pledged to expand the number of justices and use the Court to advance policy goals they can't accomplish electorally |
| Amendment Response | House Democrat Rep. Joe Morelle is preparing a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity ruling and ensure that no president is above the law |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Democrats want to limit campaign contributions
Democrats have been pushing for campaign finance reform for several years, with a focus on limiting campaign contributions. This effort is driven by the belief that big donors exert too much influence over politics and that the role of money in politics needs to be reduced. Recent polls indicate that this view is shared by a majority of Americans, with 77% saying that there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations can spend on political campaigns.
In 2019, Senate Democrats proposed a resolution, S J Res 19, which would add a 28th Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment would give Congress the power to regulate contributions and spending in federal elections, and grant similar authority to state governments in statewide contests. The resolution's sponsor, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, argued that it was necessary to address the influx of "outside money" in politics, which he believed was corrupting elections and democracy.
The proposed amendment faced opposition from Republicans, with Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona characterizing it as "putting Congress in charge of who gets free speech." Despite this opposition and the high threshold for passage, Democrats were confident that the resolution would advance out of the Judiciary Committee, with all of the committee's Democrats co-sponsoring the resolution. Senator Al Franken of Minnesota also refuted the notion that limiting campaign contributions violated free speech, stating that it would restore the First Amendment's original intent, which had been distorted by Supreme Court rulings favoring corporations and special interest groups.
The push for campaign finance reform by Democrats and activists is partly a response to recent Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance laws. The 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling and the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision struck down limits on campaign spending, with the latter ruling citing violations of free speech. These rulings have been criticized for allowing unlimited corporate spending in elections and empowering deep-pocketed entities to exert undue influence over the political process.
To address these concerns, Democrats have proposed amendments like the Saving American Democracy Amendment and the Democracy For All Amendment. These amendments aim to exclude for-profit corporations from constitutional rights, prohibit corporate spending in elections, and empower Congress and states to regulate and limit campaign contributions and expenditures. While some, like Senator McCain, have expressed doubt about the effectiveness of campaign finance reform, others remain committed to amending the Constitution to reduce the influence of money in politics.
Texas Constitution Amendments: The Ratification Process
You may want to see also
The right to life amendment opposed by Democrats
The Democratic Party has historically opposed the Republican-proposed "right to life" amendment, also known as the Human Life Amendment. This amendment seeks to restrict abortion access and grant legal personhood to unborn offspring from the moment of conception. The text of the amendment includes a provision that prohibits abortions unless there is a reasonable medical certainty that the continuation of pregnancy will result in the death of the mother. While this amendment has been supported by anti-abortion movements, it has faced opposition from abortion rights advocates within the Democratic Party.
The Democratic platform explicitly mentions protecting "a woman's right to safe and legal abortion" and appointing judges who defend liberty and equality for all. They aim to defend the constitutional principles that guarantee freedom and equality for everyone, including the right to make decisions about their own bodies. The Democrats' focus is on ensuring that individuals have the liberty to make personal choices without undue government interference.
In contrast, the "right to life" amendment proposes a broad definition of "person" that includes "all human beings, including their unborn offspring at every stage of their biological development." This definition forms the basis for granting legal rights to fetuses, which would effectively restrict abortion access and potentially impact other reproductive rights. The amendment's sponsors and supporters include senators like Orrin Hatch and Thomas Eagleton, who introduced the resolution in 1983.
Despite multiple attempts to pass this amendment, none have succeeded. The closest it came to passage was in 1983 when the Hatch-Eagleton Amendment received 49 supporting votes in the Senate, falling short of the required 67 votes. The Democratic Party's opposition to this amendment aligns with their broader commitment to safeguarding individual liberties, particularly reproductive rights, and ensuring that judicial appointments uphold these fundamental principles.
While the Democrats have proposed their own constitutional amendments, such as the Democracy for All Amendment, they have generally called for fewer amendments compared to their Republican counterparts. The party's focus has been on issues like campaign finance reform and enshrining the rights of women in the Constitution, rather than restricting abortion access through amendments like the "right to life" proposal.
Amending the Constitution: How and Why?
You may want to see also
Democrats want to prevent court packing
The Democratic Party has proposed two new constitutional amendments, compared to the Republican Party's five. One of these amendments is to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo rulings on campaign financing. The other is to enshrine the rights of women in the Constitution by passing the Equal Rights Amendment.
Senate Democrats have also been working on a plan to bring S J Res 19 to the floor, which would add a 28th Amendment stating that Congress can regulate contributions and spending in federal elections. This amendment is a response to recent Supreme Court rulings about the legality of campaign finance laws.
However, some Republicans, such as Sen. Ted Cruz, have introduced a constitutional amendment to prevent Democrats from court-packing the Supreme Court. They argue that increasing the number of justices for partisan reasons would threaten the independence and integrity of the Court and undermine Americans' confidence in the judicial system.
On the other hand, Democrats argue that Republicans have already engaged in court-packing by appointing conservative justices, and that packing the court would threaten the rule of law and judicial independence.
The debate over court-packing has been heavily influenced by the death of conservative Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016 and the subsequent refusal of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to consider President Barack Obama's liberal Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.
Ted Cruz's Proposed Term Limits Amendment
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Democrats want to enshrine women's rights in the Constitution
Democrats have been pushing for women's rights to be enshrined in the Constitution through the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The ERA, which was first proposed in 1923, aims to guarantee sex equality and reproductive rights for women. Despite being approved by both houses of Congress in the 1970s and ratified by the required three-quarters of states in 2020, the ERA has not been published or added to the Constitution due to debates over the ratification deadline.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York has been a prominent advocate for the ERA, urging President Biden to direct the national archivist to certify and publish the amendment. She argues that the ratification deadline is irrelevant and unconstitutional, and that Biden has an opportunity to secure his legacy by ensuring reproductive rights for women.
The push for the ERA has gained urgency among Democrats following the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned abortion rights. While Senate Republicans have blocked efforts to add the ERA to the Constitution, the amendment has widespread support among Americans, with a majority favoring its adoption.
The Democratic Party platform requests two new constitutional amendments, including overturning Supreme Court rulings on campaign financing to reduce the influence of money in politics. This proposal, known as S.J. Res. 19, would add a 28th Amendment to the Constitution, giving Congress and state governments the power to regulate contributions and spending in federal and statewide elections, respectively.
Who Handles Constitutional Amendments?
You may want to see also
Democrats want to overturn Citizens United
The Democratic Party platform has proposed two new constitutional amendments, one of which aims to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC ruling. The Citizens United ruling removed restrictions on campaign finance, allowing entities to spend unlimited money to influence elections. This has resulted in the creation of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions, and has led to an increase in negative advertising and the influence of money in politics.
The Democracy for All Amendment, led by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, aims to empower Congress and states to set reasonable campaign finance rules and limit corporate spending. It would enshrine the right of Americans to regulate the raising and spending of funds in public elections and curb the political influence of the wealthiest Americans. Shaheen stated that the Citizens United ruling has "flooded our elections with dark money and special interests that drown out the voices of our citizens."
The push to overturn Citizens United has gained support from activists, voters, and politicians across party lines. As of 2021, 123 organizations have pledged their support, including the NAACP, Greenpeace, and influential unions. By 2014, 125 members of Congress and President Barack Obama had expressed support for an amendment. In 2015, New York became the 17th state to call for a constitutional amendment, joining states like Vermont, California, Illinois, and New Jersey.
Despite the momentum, some have argued that the chances of successfully amending the Constitution are slim. Law professor Rick Hasen, for example, stated that Udall's amendment "has no chance whatsoever of being adopted." Nevertheless, the movement to overturn Citizens United continues to gain traction, with Democrats arguing that it is necessary to address the issue of money in politics and restore democracy.
The Constitution's First Amendment: Influencing Documents
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The 28th Amendment is a proposal to address corporate constitutional rights and the influence of money in politics. It would give Congress and state governments the authority to regulate contributions and spending in federal and statewide elections.
Democrats have proposed constitutional amendments to overturn Supreme Court rulings, such as Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo, that have been criticized for increasing corporate spending in politics and the influence of political action committees (PACs). They also aim to enshrine the rights of women, ensure accountability for presidents, and address issues like gun safety and abortion rights.
The process of amending the Constitution is traditionally cumbersome and may take years or never come to fruition. Amendments must be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or arise from a convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures, followed by ratification by legislatures or conventions in three-fourths of the states. While there is significant support for some of these amendments, there is also strong opposition, and the high threshold for passage presents a challenge.
